How can anyone be a conservative?

[fkizz]

Brevik's actions do not fit in with Freemasonry and I would not sit in Lodge with him and I would be ashamed if he were a member of my Lodge. We welcome any man who wants to fellowship in peace and brotherhood, into our Lodge. There may very well be political differences, religious differences, etc.
I've sat in Lodge with Muslims, but the sort of Muslims who would be willing to join Freemasonry and sit in Lodge next to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Deists, are not the sort of Muslims who are at risk of engaging in Islamist terrorism/violence.

This is a good reply.

No, I am saying that his desire to murder children involved in the Labor Party was motivated by his right-wing politics. You really can't be in denial that Breivik is right-winged, ing wikipedia points that out in the first line.

You know Wikipedia can be edited and changed at any time right? And that edits can have an agenda?

How someone can argue Breivik wasn't motivated by far-right ideology is frankly staggering - his manifesto went on about "Cultural Marxism" and the evils of feminism.

Well the only "Right Wing" characteristic he had was that he murdered 77+ LeftWingers. You can say he hated the left to the point causing 396 casualties left wingers. But if killing leftists is what counts as right wing, then bizarrely Stalin would astronomically outrank Breivik in your logic.

But Breivik ideological training was not in a Christian Church or in a Right Wing political party. It was in a Freemasonry Lodge. I deem Breivik to be the case of someone who utterly mentally snipped, and I doubt he was mentally sane. Who the heck stays so cold, calm and controlled while murdering 77+ people? (396 casualties)

Again I ask to leftists: Is then Freemasonry right wing your logic?

[RangerGxi]

How someone can argue Breivik wasn't motivated by far-right ideology is frankly staggering - his manifesto went on about "Cultural Marxism" and the evils of feminism.

He's right wing in the same way as the Khmer rouge is left wing. You shouldn't use Brevik to discredit the entire right.

[fkizz]

He's right wing in the same way as the Khmer rouge is left wing. You shouldn't use Brevik to discredit the entire right.

He's right wing in the same way freemasonry is "right wing". Khmer Rouge was communistic brute force, in the same way NKVD or Cheka was.

No sane person kills off 77 people and injures 319 in such little time, even trained and armed soldiers have mental blocks killing that many people in so little time. Simply Breivik is honestly a bizarre case, if only for the number of people.

So a single guy causes 396 casualties... this is not a your typical level.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Well the only "Right Wing" characteristic he had was that he murdered 90+ LeftWingers. You can say he hated the left to the point wiping out 92 left wingers. But if killing leftists is what counts as right wing, then bizarrely Stalin would astronomically outrank Breivik in your logic.

No, it's his beliefs that show him to be right-wing. He believed in Cultural Marxism, thought that feminism was destroying the West, admired Japan for not being a multicultural society. These are far-right beliefs. You won't find them on the left, at least not in any notable quantity. My logic of how right-wing you are stems from what you believe, not how many of lefties you kill.

But Breivik ideological training was not in a Christian Church or in a Right Wing political party. It was in a Freemasonry Lodge. I deem Breivik to be the case of someone who utterly mentally snipped, and I doubt he was mentally sane. Who the heck stays so cold, calm and controlled while murdering 90+ people?

Again I ask to leftists: Is then Freemasonry right wing your logic?

Again, I see nothing in Masonic ideology that would have inspired him, I see plenty in far-right ideology that would have. Just because you might be uncomfortable with associating him with the right doesn't make him not right-wing.

He's right wing in the same way as the Khmer rouge is left wing. You shouldn't use Brevik to discredit the entire right.

I'm not using him to discredit the entire-right, parts of the far-right maybe, but not the entire right. He was right-wing however, and the Khmer Rouge was left-wing - a rather odd type of left-wing to be sure, primitivist, but still undeniably left-wing.

He's right wing in the same way freemasonry is "right wing". Khmer Rouge was communistic brute force, in the same way NKVD or Cheka was.

So you don't think a guy who believes that feminism is destroying the West and that Cultural Marxism is anything more than a resurrected Nazi conspiracy is right-wing, but the Khmer Rouge was "communistic". For the record I think you're right, it was, based on what they said and what they believed, but I think it's logically incoherent to say that Breivik wasn't right-wing - what he said and wrote makes it fairly obvious that he was.

No sane person kills off 77 people and injures 319 in such little time, even trained and armed soldiers have mental blocks killing that many people in so little time. Simply Breivik is honestly a bizarre case, if only for the number of people.

So a single guy causes 396 casualties... this is not a your typical level.

You know you can be insane and also right-wing, they're not mutually exclusive. And before someone tries to pull it - yes, you can be insane and a lefty too. A lot are. If however, you are trying to use mental incapacity to show there was no ideological reason (which is absurd, if there was no ideological reason why did he write a political manifesto and chose the camp for the Labour Party specifically?) then why do you keep bringing up the Freemason thing?

[fkizz]

you are trying to use mental incapacity to show there was no ideological reason (which is absurd, if there was no ideological reason why did he write a political manifesto and chose the camp for the Labour Party specifically?) then why do you keep bringing up the Freemason thing?

He was part of a pro-Zionist Masonry lodge.
But his acts were completly random and apparently non related. That's the point. A single man causing 396 casualties is not on the level of a typical crazy person, it's on the level of a rarely crazy person.

If your average right winger caused 396 left wing casualties on a routine basis, left wing would've been wiped out ages ago, just do the math. If you really believe Breivik to be representative of right wing then be very grateful for the Great Mercy of other right wingers..

But I keep bringing the freemasonry lodge thing because (for the third time now) that's where he got his ideological training. When analysing a murderer you have to see the background.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

He was part of a pro-Zionist Masonry lodge.
But his acts were completly random and apparently non related. That's the point. A single man causing 396 casualties is not on the level of a typical crazy person, it's on the level of a rarely crazy person.

How were they random? He purposefully chose the Labour Party because in his eyes they had allowed multiculturalism and Islamic immigration. He released a Manifesto denouncing Cultural Marxism, feminism and Islam. How is this "random"? It's not, it's simply not.

If your average right winger caused 396 casualties on a routine basis, left wing would've been wiped out years ago. If you really believe Breivik to be representative of right wing then be very grateful for the Great Mercy of other right wingers..

And where did I say that he is representative of your average right-winger? He held several views held by the far-right, he was a cultural conservative. That puts him on the right wing. It doesn't mean that every right-winger is a Breivik in the making, just as not every leftist is a wannabe Stalin. I have no idea where you got that idea. Holding certain beliefs does not necessarily mean everyone who holds those beliefs agree on the methods to achieve their ends.

But I keep bringing the freemasonry thing because (for the third time now) that's where he got his ideological training. When analysing a murderer you have to see the background.

And what part of freemasonry would inspire this? Is this where he got his ideological training, because he was a member of the Progress Party years before then and alleged that he reached out to the EDL before his attacks.

[fkizz]

And what part of freemasonry would inspire this? Is this where he got his ideological training, because he was a member of the Progress Party years before then and alleged that he reached out to the EDL before his attacks.

1) There are replies meant to be given to authorities outside TWC.
2) Freemasonry is suposed to be secret society.

You're basically giving me ridiculously big burden of proof, asking me to give you details of a what could have inspired a mass murder in a secret society. He got his ideological in a freemasonry lodge, but according to you that is irrelevant information, but despite being irrelevant information, you want it very bad to the point of asking me three times about it.. That's not good detective-ing.

Also 1:396 casualties ratio is not a normal ratio. He possibly got physical and shooting training aswell... on a gun free country.

Add to that it was Breivik himself who called the Police, and the incident is obviously a very strange incident.

Labelling it as "it was just a right wing nut" sort of speech is a great service to misleading possible investigators. All because some people want a few more points to left wing partisarianism.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

1) There are replies meant to be given to authorities outside TWC.

What does this mean?

2) Freemasonry is suposed to be secret society.

You're basically giving me ridiculously big burden of proof, asking me to give you details of a what could have inspired a mass murder in a secret society. He got his ideological in a freemasonry lodge, but according to you that is irrelevant information, but despite being irrelevant information, you want it very bad to the point of asking me three times about it.. That's not good detective-ing.

I'll give you a huge burden of proof if you make huge assertions, like the assertion that his actions weren't influenced by this far-right political opinions (the generally accepted and verifiable view) but instead might have come from the Freemasons. Why? You keep saying the Freemasons is where he got his ideological framework, is it? Because he was a member of the conservative Progress Party before he joined the Masons, and he said that he reached out to the EDL. That's two other organisations he could have got his ideological framework from, and given what we know of his ideological framework it seems more likely that he was influenced by them than the Masons. This is my point, we know his ideological framework. It is one where Cultural Marxism is a legitimate threat, feminism is destroying the west, as are Islam and multiculturalism. Now I'm not a Mason, but from what I know of them this not what they advocate - but if they did it would still be far-right politics, because those opinions are generally far-right. How is this so hard to follow? Why do you keep linking it to the Masons when we have an obvious source for his ideology - the far-right. It is plain as day from what he has said and written, and yet for some reason you continually gloss over this. It's worth noting he stated that he started planning these attacks 9 years prior - before he joined the Masons and whilst he was a member of the Progress Party.

Also 1:396 casualties ratio is not a normal ratio. He possibly got physical and shooting training aswell... on a gun free country.

He stated that he trained for the incident, and was apparently part of a pistol club. It's also worth noting his targets were unarmed teenagers on an island that he was actively shooting at for an hour. Of course it's not a normal ratio - normally mass shooting happen in areas where the police are close-by.

Add to that it was Breivik himself who called the Police, and the incident is obviously a very strange incident.

Yeah, because he was using it for publicity - of his cause, of his ideology, of his manifesto. It's perfectly self-explanatory. He said the Labour Party had to "pay the price".

Labelling it as "it was just a right wing nut" sort of speech is a great service to misleading possible investigators. All because some people want a few more points to left wing partisarianism.

Labelling him a "right-wing nut" is an accurate description. If you have far-right opinions, say that the Labour Party are a party of "Cultural Marxism", feminism, and multiculturalism - all of which you hate, and then you attack them because of this - that's a right-wing attack. Just like the Wall Street Bombing was a left-wing attack, and the Charlie Hebdo attack was an Islamist attack. Are you point-scoring when you point out that the 2015 Paris Attacks were Islamist? Or are you just giving an accurate description - I think the later.

[Love Mountain]

Bit unfair because until WW2 there was not a sufficient consensus to pass in the US government - a government by design to be not a parliamentary system.

FDR did not just do Hoover large - he really did eventually embrace a real and significant and formal break in policy from the norm its just that took until around 1938. However in reality the New Deal was a new since it - while not formal - it also provided a layer of in modern US usage continuing off budget expenditures that opened the door to 'real' keynesianism. By that I mean embracing the ideal and not just fudging or formally allowing just a one goal of no balanced budget the Hoover view if continued was decided the same old same old.

So yes FDR's real pat on the back is not a 100 days or some such but listening to his own experts in 1938 that the expected normal typical policy of the day just killed the recovery he sort of helped save and the Keynes was in fact correct. That is a difference nor is it clear that mark 2 or 3 Hoover would have done something the same.

Agreed.

Spend when times are down, save when times are up. In application, the lever is just set to spend forever and is pushed down harder whenever the economy sputters.

This hits some of the nails in an odd way. The core principle of Keynesian thought is that aggregate demand, not free market dynamics are the core drivers of a healthy economy. Even strict adherents of 'old' Keynesian theories would be conflicted as to whether the "tightening" of belts would be needed. Especially since a lot of the world was till on the Gold Standard. With fiat currency and powerful central banking, this "tightening" of belts may not be needed at all. Don't take it to the extreme of course. Nobody is proposing endless stimulus.

Anyway, the classic narrative that Keynesianism is simply "Spend during the Bear, Save during Bull" is a bit tired and does not reflect the core elements of Keynes theory. Either way, modern macro diverges from Keynes in a lot of different ways, the arguments have evolved significantly, and I'm very conflicted on which current theories are "right". I've been leaning more and more towards modern Ricardian arguments when looking at the evolved arguments that address many critiques against Classical Theories during the 20th century.

In fact, when looking at today's enormous piles of data, particularly when comparing state economies with United States, you will find many instances where macro cannot sufficiently explain the phenomena. Which is reasonable, the number of factors present in real life can break down many models easily, as well as fit many models easily. If you look at modern academic literature coming of post-graduates and graduates, you will see that a lot of papers simply focus on very minute, very micro-level events to try to narrow down and eliminate economic factors that make macroeconomics such an imprecise science at times.

Actually, that is something we have a very short supply of. Studies that aggregate thousands of studies done in isolation, in order to accurately model economic phenomena. Why do SMEs thrive in both high and low tax regimes? Why are health outcomes independent of social spending levels in some places, and almost perfectly dependent in others? Etc.

[fkizz]

@Napoleonic Bonapartism

If your point is to routinely say that ideological training in freemasonry was irrelevant to breivik's psyche, then I can't tell if this is about left/right wing or someone's just doing PR work in favour of freemasonry.