Does freedom lead to moral decay and cultural degradation?

[Winston]

Check out this post on IMDB that argues why freedom is actually bad for society, and how it degenerates people and their values. This is the first post I've ever seen that argues against freedom, which is something we all assume is good for us. What do you think?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1333994/boa ... 403680?p=2

"I will confess that I do not believe in Freedom--I am a fascist, through and through, but in a sense not understood since the term has lost meaning.
Freedom means people can do whatever they want, irrespective of the consequences to others. Look at women in the past generation or so, and compare them with the women 60 years ago. More freedom has left to self-destructive tendencies. We have a generation of sluts, of daddies princesses completely absorbed in celebrity gossip and reality tv. This is what freedom means. But consider how recent generations of men and women have fared with such mothering, and the lack of fathering in single homes.
Further consider the epidemic of porn in this country, and ask yourself what the long term consequences of it really are. Think of Julianne Moore's character in Boogie Nights, and the effect her life choices had on her status as a mother, as just one example.
Another example--consider the various drug epidemics that have destroyed countless lives in this country, all for the sake of "Freedom." The most recent one has been the meth epidemic, which has probably been the most startling.
When I rewatched Valkyrie, I thought to myself that despite all the criticisms fo that regime, the men were manly, and the women were femine, and healthy. No pornstars (or other inditia of the slut generation or generations), no degenerate rap or other pop music, no *beep* poisonous fast food, the list goes on (and on). To me it shows man should NOT be free.
This is all tangential as any sort of DICTAT along those lines won't be coming around anytime soon. But it does demonstrate what a fallacy the notion of Freedom is.
And by the way, norms and mores are always decided by others. Everything comes down to a subjective moral judgment. There are laws against beastiality because other people have decided those who want to do it should not be free to do so, even though in many instances it poses no health risks whatsoever to the person or the animal."

[Tsar]

Freedom does lead to moral decay, cultural degradation, dysfunctional government, and crime. Authoritarian governments such as monarchism, autocracy, and despotism are the best systems. Republics and democracies are not sustainable. Republics and democracies always have the same end result: moral decay, cultural degradation, dysfunctional government, crime, systematic collapse, and corruption.

[Winston]

Freedom does lead to moral decay, cultural degradation, dysfunctional government, and crime. Authoritarian governments such as monarchism, autocracy, and despotism are the best systems. Republics and democracies are not sustainable. Republics and democracies always have the same end result: moral decay, cultural degradation, dysfunctional government, crime, systematic collapse, and corruption.

If that's true, then what do you recommend? That we all just submit and obey the criminal fascists that run America now? Besides, doesn't power corrupt, so that anyone who gets in power, even in a monarchy, becomes corrupt and evil?

How is society supposed to find a good monarch or ruler? Can you think of any examples in history? Don't good leaders get assassinated?

Why does freedom lead to moray decay and cultural degradation? Are humans inherently self-destructive? Can't they simply be taught good morals?

How would the Libertarians respond to this?

[Tsar]

Freedom does lead to moral decay, cultural degradation, dysfunctional government, and crime. Authoritarian governments such as monarchism, autocracy, and despotism are the best systems. Republics and democracies are not sustainable. Republics and democracies always have the same end result: moral decay, cultural degradation, dysfunctional government, crime, systematic collapse, and corruption.

If that's true, then what do you recommend? That we all just submit and obey the criminal fascists that run America now? Besides, doesn't power corrupt, so that anyone who gets in power, even in a monarchy, becomes corrupt and evil?

How is society supposed to find a good monarch or ruler? Can you think of any examples in history? Don't good leaders get assassinated?

Why does freedom lead to moray decay and cultural degradation? Are humans inherently self-destructive? Can't they simply be taught good morals?

How would the Libertarians respond to this?

I don't think the criminal fascists that run America or the Western world should be obeyed. All Western governments have illegitmate governments that serve a small group of ruling elites. In order to be a legitimate government it must serve the greater good of the country, focus on it's people, work towards the betterment of society, creating a moral country, and preserving their culture. Every democracy has failed (Athens was the only historical democracy and only the men would vote) and the majority of Republics have failed (especially when hedonism, greed, and feminism infects the republic).

I don't believe that everyone who obtains absolute power would become evil and corrupt. A benefit of having a hereditary leadership is they wouldn't have to answer to a banking cartel or give into special interests. They could allocate all tax revenue, pass laws, and create a Golden Age. Almost every Golden Age in history has been created under the rule by monarchs. Monarchs would fund science, architecture, art, exploration, and many other developments.

Some great leaders are Marcus Aurelius of the Roman Empire and Peter the Great of Russia.

http://listverse.com/2010/08/11/top-10- ... -monarchs/
There are also some good examples on the link above.

It is true that good leaders, especially in the present, are more likely to be assassinated only because special interests don't want good leaders in power.

In America science, education, museums, the arts, and anything that benefits the greater good at cut. Tax revenue goes into the pockets of corporations, banks, the elites, the politicians, corporate subsidies, bailouts, bribing other governments and corrupt leaders, maintaining hundreds of military outposts abroad, building more weapons, the military industrial complex, monetizing the prison system, the War on Drugs, and building the ever-growing tyrannical police state.

Freedom leads to moral decay because too much freedom leads to chaos and immorality. Monarchs, dictators, chieftains, and tribe lords are the traditional forms of leadership that maintained order and tradition. People need a strong leader because they need someone to look up to and they need someone to follow. Monarchism and religion coexisted because the hierarchy in monarchies is modeled after the hierarchies in religions. Monarchies wanted to give their people morals so they encouraged people to follow a well-defined moral code. Eventually in countries like America that has too much freedom republicanism and religion can not coexist. Unlimited and unbridled freedom will destroy a society. Most people can not make well-informed decisions, work towards the greater good, and many would be motivated by self-interest more than the good of the nation.

Giving one person like a monarch absolute power encourages good policies because they have to maintain an approval rating high enough to avoid rebellion, they have a vested interest in the success of the country (hereditary leadership, maintaining their power, and keeping the economy healthy to maintain a good salary), and they would want to leave an imprint behind. Contrast that with the modern republics where most "democratically" elected politicians are puppets and pawns of special interests and the elites. They don't care about maintaining approval ratings because they can hide behind the fascist police, soldiers, and people think "they were voted in. we'll elect someone new in a few years." They don't care about leaving a good imprint behind because they want to be given good jobs by their campaign donors, receive secret compensation, get book deals, and have people pay them for interviews. I would rather have a monarch or a dictator leading a country, instead of an elected plutocracy where each regime pilfers and loots the country ignoring the greater good.

Why do the countries with dictators or more authoritarian forms of government have more moral people and lower costs of living? Why do Middle Eastern countries and Venezuela have affordable oil? Why are natural GMO-free goods more affordable abroad? Why is healthcare (and private health insurance) more affordable abroad? Why is education more affordable or free in most other countries?

America is a fascist country that is designed to indoctrinate people into believing the lies about republicanism, democracy, that monarchies and dictatorships are evil, and that America is a land of opportunity. America is a fascist, plutocratic, corporatist banana republic. Politicians and celebrities are relatively above the law, so are Presidents and many Senators. They could commit felonies and get probation, a suspended sentence, and many job officers. The president can already order anyone assassinated.

Everyone should realize that in any government the leader will be above the law unless there is a successful revolution, the other leaders remove the leader, or a vigilante assassinates is able to assassinate a terrible leader.

Humanity can be taught morals but if there is excess freedom and immorality then being taught morals won't matter. Many people, especially women are susceptible to peer pressure. It's both nature and nurture when it comes to morals. When the surrounding cultural environment is toxic, immoral, and corrupt then even if many people were taught morals they would still be heavily influenced by their environment and become immoral and corrupted just like their surrounding cultural environment.

Libertarians' theory of smaller government and no government infringement is relatively good in theory but it would not be successful. When there is no one enforcing order there would be crime and chaos. I think less bureaucracy and effective leadership is something that is realistic.

[Moretorque]

I think the real problem is most people are childish, immature and to stupid to where you cannot make an open and free society work. They do not educate themselves and do not realize they are ignorant because they are basically to stupid to figure out they are.

The group that is currently making a bid for total world domination knows this and this is one of the major reasons they are doing what they are.

A very interesting thing about the net is it very much made a very large exclaimation in the elites favor, the populace has had 20 years here in the US to figure out their political body is pure theatre but alot of the public still has not figured out it is mere illusion created in order to deflect attention away from our real ruler's.

With a compassionate intelligent public a free and open society is the only real way to go forward from where we are emotionally and intellectually in this experiment of being alive on this world. However we do not have a compassionate intelligent society so the outlook is bleak to say the least and our rulers are attempting to build a cage around the herd and pin it in along with the thinking class who is stuck in the cage being built with the idiots.

It's sad that it has come to this.

[abcdavid01]

Okay, so I haven't posted here in a while, but Winston just PM'd me and the topic is something I can argue well. Note, I used to be a typical Libertarian, but now I'm more Authoritarian.

In any case, past month I've been on trips, met some cool girls and the situation with my parents got a lot worse. Actually it kind of hit rock bottom, so now there's nowhere but up for them. Don't know if I'll still be posting here as much as I used to though.

So in lieu of a more tailored response, which may or may not be forthcoming, I will copy an email I recently sent to my father, a Libertarian. Cheers to Tsar for teaching me a lot.

-------------------------------------------------

This is easier to put into writing.

I said earlier that I suspected cannibalism existed in Africa before colonialism. Now that I think about it, I know this is true.

Something most people don't ask about slavery in America is, who sold them the slaves? The answer is the Africans themselves.

So the question becomes, is it better to be a slave in America or a slave in Africa? The answer is undoubtedly America. In Africa they would be subject to ritualistic sacrifice.

I ask questions like this a lot now. The idea is that history is written by the victors. What does that say about our society?

For example, the Klu Klux Klan. In the Reconstruction era, the North had few Blacks, but a state like Alabama had Blacks for as much as 40% of its population. To grant these ex-slaves political rights with no preparation for citizenship was a totally absurd policy. It's the same reason people oppose amnesty for illegal aliens today. It was more of an issue during Reconstruction though, since modern governments are mostly faceless, a point I'll get to later.

Furthermore, and this is well known, the freed Blacks weren't suddenly all given homes to live in and jobs to attend. This can be blamed on Southern Whites themselves (and President Johnson). Nevertheless, the result was that many of them became criminals. The Klu Klux Klan was formed to stop them from raping White women. I think this is a valid purpose.

It's a catch-22 for Feminists. Who's more wrong? Those who create the conditions for criminality or the criminals themselves? If you're sympathetic to the ex-slaves, that's sympathy for rapists. Slavemasters raping their charges just muddles the issue for everyone, myself included. Is Black on White rape justifiable as a form of in-kind reparation during Reconstruction? These issues are not always so cut and dry.

Have you read "A South Side View of Slavery?" it was written by a Northern abolitionist. He was a priest who traveled South shortly before the Civil War to seek medical treatment.

When the author began traveling he was of course biased, being an abolitionist. However, he saw few instances of cruelty to the slaves and in his opinion they mostly seemed happy. In one town, the masters trusted their slaves so much they let them run the fire department.

The author began doubting himself after seeing the peaceful relationships between slaves and their masters. Then he went to a slave auction and suddenly he started chastising himself for being fooled so easily.

However, he repeatedly saw attempts to keep slave families together. He felt horrified when a slave mother looked to be separated from her daughter. Then the auctioneers went out of their way to make sure the pair were bought together. In another instance, a slave woman went up to a master and asked him to buy her because he already bought her husband. He did so immediately.

Now I like Black people - the ones I've met personally. Maybe even more than a lot of Whites. However, I also think most slaveowners liked Blacks too. I'm not saying slavery was a good thing - just not nearly as bad as it's made out.

It certainly wasn't worth fighting a war over, which other countries mostly avoided. The Civil War was Whites versus Whites. The slaves themselves revolted in Haiti and that country to this day is still terrible.

What I am saying is that Uncle Tom's Cabin was and still is propaganda - this was the Southern opinion of the book when it was released. Frederick Douglas was probably honest about his story - it's important to keep things balanced. My point is though, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Very often the losers, the villains, have valid points. They may be oppositional, but that does not make their views nonsensical. They are not idiots whose views can be dismissed as mere bigotry. To do so is to engage in propaganda.

Falsified quotes attributed to the Talmud are often cited as sources of Anti-Semetism. Well I think there are just as many fake Talmud quotes as there are fake Hitler quotes. Hitler, of course, was an ardent anti-Communist. FDR was probably a Communist himself. I'm interested in real history - from both sides.

Fake Talmud quotes, fake Hitler quotes, I'm only interested in the truth. This leads to some very unorthodox views. Talking honestly about things like race does not make one a racist. Only White Progressives are worried about this. Racism's seen as okay so long as you're a minority.

So I'm interested in truth and civilized behavior wherever it is found. To not question is to have no moral position at all.

Democracy promotes quantity over quality. No company allows the janitors a say in who the CEO is.

Another problem is called tyranny of small decisions or tragedy of the commons. The idea is that a large number of decisions, each carrying a small individual weight, can add up to one very bad result. This is how animals go extinct. A single hunter killing a single animal carries little weight. However, many hunters doing the same can kill off the entire population. Democracy can be quite similar.

This is what Aristotle meant about Democracy promoting selfish interests. At least in a Polity votes are made towards the national interest. It comes full circle though, because even in a Polity where voters aren't selfish, some voters are still much smarter than others. It's dangerous to put power in the hands of the incompetent. Even the Founding Fathers felt this way.

Being sympathetic to the proles I don't quite agree with Ayn Rand, but she considered Aristotle her only influence. Galt's Gulch worked because they were all geniuses and they segregated themselves. I just think colonization is better than segregation which is better than living among cannibals. Even the Native Americans engaged in scalping - The French and British just paid them to do it. Noble Savages indeed.

Left-Wing governments are impersonal machines. You can even see it in their architecture. (Sidenote: This is why everything is holistic. Art reflects society - just look at Post-Modern Abstraction). This may sound good in a Libertarian sense, since calling something impersonal implies it leaves you alone. In reality it means a ton of bureaucrats make small decisions. It's hard to place the blame for problems when the government has no face. There is a lack of accountability.

Such governments can even use voting a means of distraction. If people think they still have a small say in government, even if it's a trick, they won't revolt. This is closer to the type of government we have today. Aristotle would call it an Oligarchy, the selfish version of noble (selfless) Aristocracy.

If today we have a government as totalitarian as Britain's was made out to be (at least on taxes) the reason there is no revolution is not just apathy, but because democracy provides a false sense of vox populi.

Mao was right. Power does come from the gun. Every Libertarian knows this. Irony forms an ouroboros. Democracy prevents revolution even when one would be expected. Even if there wasn't this castration, nobody would know where to aim their shots.

Right-Wing governments are highly personal - they form a cult of personality. For obvious reasons they suffered a loss of support during the 20th century. However, they present distinct advantages. The government is highly visible and thus more accountable. They are at higher risk for overthrow when bad decisions are made, so the government will avoid making them. They can also be more Libertarian in that sovereigns don't have time or care to waste policing people's personal lives and their petty concerns.

Which makes me think of...it's almost a kind of socialism, but Right socialism. Take for example a litterer. A Left-Wing Socialist government is passive and submissive. It spends money to form a committee to pick up the litter after the fact. It doesn't show its face. A Right-Socialist government is active and dominant. It obtains money by fining the litterer. It makes a personal demand.

Singapore successfully manages its racial diversity not through tolerance, but through authoritarianism. It's my model country after Rhodesia. Unfortunately, I suspect it will also fall victim like Rhodesia. Singapore won't go away, but it will probably become more liberal to the detriment of social harmony.

On Rhodesia again, it was a literal attempt to enact MLK's idea to judge people not by skin color, but by the content of their character. Well of course if primitive African tribesman are judged by the same standard as White Europeans, Whites will win every time. The irony of calling Rhodesia racist was lost on the world.

In any case, the country was lost due to British mandate. There are certainly enough Africans old enough to remember who would just beg for White rule back. Same for the Congo and even for Jamaica. A recent poll in Jamaica suggested they'd welcome back British rule if it were an option.

Whites are just committing suicide, but it seems like their cast out children suffer the most. Reasonable objections can be made about exploitation, but I still think I'm right. It's better than supporting cannibalism. These countries (and ghettos) left alone have the worst results. Whites sure aren't exploiting Detroit and Chicago - they don't even want to live there.

For more irony, if courage is defending your beliefs against the majority pressure, the most courageous people in this society are White Nationalists. Right or wrong, I'll learn from both sides. Of course in the recent past being out and gay really was courageous, so I won't say courage is a virtue in and of itself.

Progressives have to pretend they are in constant war with some enemy. Where it doesn't exist they create it by destroying successive valued social traditions. They aren't rebels to restore peace (which comes from establishing order), but to create chaos.

Infighting leads to distraction leads to oligarchy. A tyrant's no good because he might not share the blood diamonds. See? I can play both angles here. That's open mindedness. Being better than someone isn't the same as oppressing them, but the government, the bureaucratic oligarchy, doesn't want anyone better than its own entity. Everyone is equally powerless.

Progressives also put on a facade of open mindedness by calling it tolerance or multi-culturalism. This is just doublespeak. Same as Progressive itself. Destroying traditions and morality (Marx called it breaking chains) is just regression into a pre-civilized state. Progressivism is a new religion, worship of Social Body (Humans always anthropomorphize) with its prophet the Noble Savage. I learned that from Hayek.

So one last note. I think I'm very open minded. In such a progressive society I would have to be in order to accept the kind of views I have. They go against everything that's taught. There's no courage in standing up for gays anymore. Will an athlete get fired for coming out of the closet or for making "bigoted" comments? Most people who are bigoted just keep their mouths shuts like cowards. They get caught up in democratic distractions (and consumerist distractions. See? Socialism). They segregate, as is human nature. Survival instinct is still necessary - if White Liberals weren't hypocrites they'd all move to Detroit. So the key isn't integration - who does that benefit? The key is colonization. The key is relabeling homosexuality as a mental disorder, as it was known until the Seventies. That, and all the other products of overarching Leftism, is what's ruining the West.

-------------------------------------------------

I am basically a person who would rather live in a world where Anders Breivik is considered a hero instead of Nelson Mandela. Both were terrorists (Margaret Thatcher said so about Mandela), but only one is considered a hero.

Winston, or anyone else who wants to pursue these thoughts, the label many of us use is Reactionary. I used to be a libertarian - still am, really. It's just important to recognize that equality doesn't exist.

Who is a Fascist Libertarian?

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fas ... ter-world/

[abcdavid01]

America is a fascist country that is designed to indoctrinate people into believing the lies about republicanism, democracy, that monarchies and dictatorships are evil, and that America is a land of opportunity. America is a fascist, plutocratic, corporatist banana republic. Politicians and celebrities are relatively above the law, so are Presidents and many Senators. They could commit felonies and get probation, a suspended sentence, and many job officers. The president can already order anyone assassinated.

Good post like always, but I do have an objection. Actually I think views like ours are close to historical Fascism. I mean, the Nazis were virulently anti-Communist. Those are the real enemies. Even the Soviet Union before it collapsed was becoming more Fascist than Communist. Same as China (and still Russia) today. Those are the countries we like, see? So I mainly use the label "Reactionary" and "Monarchist" is good too, but "Fascism" is Right-Wing, forms a cult of personality, and is actually quite similar to monarchy, even if it isn't as good. So instead of Fascist here I think you mean Tyrannical. The American government we have is Left-Wing and Communistic. Instead of a Monarch or Fascist cult of personality, we have a faceless, soulless bureaucratic machine. Fascism and Communism are enemies at opposite poles. Fascism's on our side.

Hitler's Declaration of War Against the U.S.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

[Cornfed]

I am basically a person who would rather live in a world where Anders Breivik is considered a hero instead of Nelson Mandela. Both were terrorists (Margaret Thatcher said so about Mandela), but only one is considered a hero

Yes, Mandela was a terrorist helping low quality races colonise and destroy an advanced and prosperous high-quality society on behalf of the Jews/banksters, whereas Breivik was, on the face of it, trying to prevent such a scenario from happening by hitting back at the genocidal traitors bringing it about. Hence Mandela is bad while Breivik is good.

[Moretorque]

Maybe it is just me but some how I get the feeling our rulers have just absolutely done a masterful job on duping almost everybody. Somebody please come out and debate this and shut me up. I see the Nazi's, Communist, Fascist or whatever else you want to call these things just different names for dictatorships that once you scratch below the surface a little they are essentially the same thing.

They were all created by printing money out of thin air, if I am a fascist dictator I do not want to tie my economy to something real, I want to command it with an iron fist. I would just want to put it in drive and go and fake money allows this.

Alan Greenspan wrote a paper which was in a Ayn Rand book in the 60's and it explains the purpose of tying the money to something real to protect the people from the all powerful state.

It's called Gold and Economic Freedom, he obviously sold out and I am not saying I am for a Gold standard but all this nonsense going on in the world has fake money fueling it at it's core that's all.

[Cornfed]

Alan Greenspan wrote a paper which was in a Ayn Rand book in the 60's and it explains the purpose of tying the money to something real to protect the people from the all powerful state.

It's called Gold and Economic Freedom, he obviously sold out and I am not saying I am for a Gold standard but all this nonsense going on in the world has fake money fueling it at it's core that's all.

Greenspan and Rand were obviously baddies from the beginning. Not really surprising given that they were Jews.

[Winston]

I am basically a person who would rather live in a world where Anders Breivik is considered a hero instead of Nelson Mandela. Both were terrorists (Margaret Thatcher said so about Mandela), but only one is considered a hero

Yes, Mandela was a terrorist helping low quality races colonise and destroy an advanced and prosperous high-quality society on behalf of the Jews/banksters, whereas Breivik was, on the face of it, trying to prevent such a scenario from happening by hitting back at the genocidal traitors bringing it about. Hence Mandela is bad while Breivik is good.

What did Nelson Mandela do that was bad? I thought the Western media praised him as an iconic Jesus Christ type of figure. How did he help the Jewish bankers? I thought he did a lot to end apartheid in South Africa. Is that not true?

Tsar and David,
What about China and North Korea? Are those ideal type of dictatorships to you?

Isn't the drawback with a monarchy, that the monarch can mass murder his own people and no one can do anything about it? Such as Ivan the Terrible in Russia and that ruler, Vlad, that the Dracula story is based on?

What's to prevent a monarch from become a mass murderer?

Do you remember Emperor Quinn, the first Emperor of China? He took over other provinces and killed a lot of people too. Isn't that a bad thing?

[Tsar]

Tsar and David,
What about China and North Korea? Are those ideal type of dictatorships to you?

Isn't the drawback with a monarchy, that the monarch can mass murder his own people and no one can do anything about it? Such as Ivan the Terrible in Russia and that ruler, Vlad, that the Dracula story is based on?

What's to prevent a monarch from become a mass murderer?

Do you remember Emperor Quinn, the first Emperor of China? He took over other provinces and killed a lot of people too. Isn't that a bad thing?

I am personally a monarchist and believe in hereditary leadership (by blood and the best to rule, not specifically by birth order). I think that North Korea's cult of personality around their leader is a good thing because the monarch or dictator should be the greatest national celebrity. The majority of Western celebrities are sluts, feminists, manginas, criminals, scum, trashy, entitled, drama queens, and are part of the problem that is destroying Western civilization.

I believe that Western countries are trying to cause North Korea to collapse. North Korea is trying to advance its country and military, protect their people from Western influences, and give their people a sense of strong nationalism. If it wasn't for the sanctions that Western countries and UN (the US, Western, ZOGs puppet) North Korea would be more prosperous.

Although any authoritarian leader could possibly mass murder their own people, I believe that if proper policies were in place to prevent it then it could be stopped. Sometimes a leader has to be violent if they want to suppress a collapse of their society (feminism, anti-nationalists, and forces that would subvert the greater good). Most leaders would have a balance between being loved and being feared. A fair, just, and very strict leader is better than a fair, lenient, and very merciful leader. Eventually too much leniency and mercy will cause the leader to lose respect, be seen as a joke, and people will demand more and more "freedoms" leading to anarchy and moral decay.

[Moretorque]

You see this is the thing, our true ruler's figured out long ago that in a modern economy the means of trade runs the whole show so no matter what system you say you want or whatever you want to call yourself in that modern system you are second fiddle to the entity that runs the means of facilitating trade.

They figured that out, but then they have been trying to set the system up to where the masses cannot figure this out or who they are and how they run the show by controlling the trading script.

That is why all the other rulers bit the dust for the most part and the hidden creditor has risen to the top.

[Cornfed]

I am basically a person who would rather live in a world where Anders Breivik is considered a hero instead of Nelson Mandela. Both were terrorists (Margaret Thatcher said so about Mandela), but only one is considered a hero

Yes, Mandela was a terrorist helping low quality races colonise and destroy an advanced and prosperous high-quality society on behalf of the Jews/banksters, whereas Breivik was, on the face of it, trying to prevent such a scenario from happening by hitting back at the genocidal traitors bringing it about. Hence Mandela is bad while Breivik is good.

What did Nelson Mandela do that was bad? I thought the Western media praised him as an iconic Jesus Christ type of figure. How did he help the Jewish bankers? I thought he did a lot to end apartheid in South Africa. Is that not true?

The historical situation in South Africa was that white Afrikaners were the first agricultural occupiers who were then colonised by the British/Jews. The latter then imported Bantu-type blacks as cheap labor and to carry out the planned genocide of whites. Basically the Jews (in the case of South Africa led by the Oppenheimer family) use high quality white populations to do the hard intellectual tasks in developing places and then once this phase is completed they wipe them out and replace them with lower quality races that are easier to control. It is similar to how you might found cattle farms in the wild by using hardy breeds of cattle such as the Texas Longhorn that could fend for themselves and defend themselves against predators, but then when you had settled pasture you would get rid of them and replace them with more domesticated breeds like Herefords. Hence most Bantu-type blacks in South Africa are in fact the descendants of migrant workers or illegal immigrants, so it was perfectly reasonable to impose an Apartheid system on them (in the same way that some form of Apartheid is imposed on almost any migrant workers) and would have been even better to simply expel them. The end of Apartheid and the subsequent murder of 70 000 whites (and counting) marks the triumph of evil and dissonance against a previously viable, civilised society, and has really benefited no-one except the banksters and their corporate cronies.

[abcdavid01]

I think it's fair to say that any type of government could mass murder its people. Plus it's important to determine what actions are really just products of war.