Hodjanernes Blog

14 november 2013

Krig mellem Sverige og Norge

Svenske Aftonbladet trækker Breivikkortet mod det norske Fremskrittsparti.

Mange har latt seg engasjere av Ehsan Fadakar betraktninger om Norge, som han delte i et innlegg i Aftonbladet onsdag.

Særlig Fremskrittspartiet får så hatten passer i Fadakars kommentar.

«För bare några veckor sen släppte Moderaternas søsterparti Höyre in massmördarens favorit­gäng i regeringsställning. Frp anvender sig gärna av Breivikretorik som låter hemskt likt SD eller om det är tvärtom alltihopa. Norge måste stoppet ”smyg­islamiseringen”. Islam jämförs med nazismen», skriver Fadakar i den svenske storavisen Aftonbladet.

Han skriver at Siv Jensen gikk til valg ved å rette et spark mot romfolket.

«De skal ut. Inn på bussen. Ut av landet. Dumpes. Rikeste landet i verden behandler det fattigste folket i Europa som dyr».

Mere på NettAvisen

Den norske forfatter Aslak Nore skriver på Twitter:

ASLAK_NORE
Bemærk at Nore selv er så PK, at han kun tør betegne Fadakar som ‘svensker’.

OPDATERING: Svenske nazijægere

24 august 2012

Fjordman skriver om Breivik-dommen i dag

Læs det på Snaphanen.

Jeg kan ikke si med sikkerhet om Breivik er utilregnelig da jeg aldri har møtt ham. Det virker sannsynlig at han utgjør et komplisert grensetilfelle. Derimot er det helt tydelig at denne konklusjonen er fremtvunget av mediepress som dommerne ikke har klart å motstå, slik advokat Morten Furuholmen korrekt har påpekt. Dette er pressens dom som de har påtvunget oss, ikke rettens dom. Etter denne dommen må vi spørre oss om vi bor i et demokrati der folket styrer eller et pressokrati, der pressen hersker og synes at den bør det.

Denne saken har rettet et kritisk søkelys mot rettspsykiatere, bloggere, politi, politikere og andre. Det er greit, men kanskje er det på tide også å rette søkelyset mot massemediene selv. Vi trenger en strukturell opprydning i pressen like mye som vi gjør det i politiet.

Hva enkeltpersoner som ikke har undersøkt Breivik måtte mene om tilregnelighet er uinteressant, poenget er som advokat Morten Furuholmen påpeker at det foreligger tvil, og da tilsier etablert rettspraksis at man skal ansees som utilregnelig. Dommerne har i dette tilfellet satt til side all vanlig rettspraksis i kjølvannet av massivt mediepress og har i stedet fulgt rådet til tungt politiserte vitner som Øyvind Strømmen, Lars Gule og Mattias Gardell. Dette svekker tilliten til rettens konklusjoner ganske kraftig.

4 juni 2012

Vi lider af vrangforestillinger men er ikke paranoidt skizofrene

Filed under: Demografi, EURABIA, Europa, Islam, Islamisering, Jihad, Norge, Utøya — Tags: , — Hodja @ 10:46

Religionshistorikeren Mattias Gardell mener Breiviks tanker deles av en større bevegelse.

Han mener ideene og teoriene til Anders Behring Breivik ikke skiller seg fra mange andre i den kontrajihadistiske bevegelsen.

Blant miljøets særdrag er det at den vestlige kulturen står i direkte fare, og at verdenen som vi kjenner den er i ferd med å gå under. Også forståelsen av at det lille mindretallet som varsler om dette, ikke får komme til orde, sier Gardell.

Gardell har gått gjennom flere av de sentrale delene av Breiviks manifest og ordene han bruker.

Dette vil vise at de vrangforestillingene Huseby og Sørheim trodde var paranoid schizofreni ikke er unike, men vanlig i det politiske miljøet han er en del av, sier professoren.

Skal alle disse dømmes til tvungent psykisk helsevern, må dere bygge en stor anstalt, sier Gardell tørt.

OPDATERING: Informatikk-forsker og samfunnsdebattant Ole Jørgen Anfindsen mener at både SSB og media har vist feil prognoser for innvandring til Norge.

 

16 april 2012

Breivik A/S

“Når pengene i kassen klinger, straks pressen ud af anstændigheden springer”

De gigantiske summer som pressen og den norske regering poster i retssagen mod massemordren Breivik kan vise sig at være en risikabel investering. Den mest nærliggende risiko synes nu overstået, idet man har vedtaget at Breivik ikke er sindssyg. Havde man holdt sig til den første psykiatriske undersøgelse – som i modsætning til den næste ikke havde konklusionen skrevet på forhånd – var uhyret blevet gemt af vejen på en anstalt. Antagelig for resten af livet. Og i så fald var de venstreorienterede og deres presse gået glip af den Allah-sendte gave, som de nu aldeles henrykte forsøger at udnytte til et alt for let gennemskueligt associationstrick. Desuden ville de blive berøvet muligheden for at fylde spalte op og spalte ned med Breivik i månedsvis. I den tro at deres styrtdykkende oplagstal kan bremses ved at holde den gryde i kog.

Men Breivik og hans 77 unge, brutalt nedmejede ofre har hensat Journalistisk Venstreparti i ekstase. Tænk blot, om situationen havde været af den mere almindelige – langt mere almindelige – slags: en muslim sprænger nogle regeringsbygninger i luften hvorved 7 dræbes. Fortsætter til en teltlejr hvor han – med de sædvanlige Allah-hu Akbar og korancitater gjaldende  – slagter 69 spejdere eller FDF’ere. – I så fald ville retssagen blive holdt for dobbeltlukkede døre med referat- og navneforbud. Og pressen ville i nogle dage koncentrere sig om at forklare, hvorfor denne sag intet – intetsomhelst – havde at gøre med islam. Nul, nix, nada, zip, zero. – Næh, det hele skyldtes i virkeligheden de fæle islamofober. Det må vi da kunne forstå…

Nu gik det anderledes, og man kan så opføre et mægtigt mediestunt på de dræbtes grave. Og lade urhyret sole sig – til gavn for Den Anti-Anti-Islamiske Sag™ og avisernes slunkne pengekasser. Men kan de gå ud fra, at investeringen kommer igen?

Ovre på Document.no skriver Hans Rustad, der selv er indkaldt som vidne: “Professor Erik Gjems Onstad makes an interesting point in Norway’s financial paper, Dagens Næringsliv: If Breivik is found sane and ends up in prison, he will enjoy the same rights as any other prisoner, and in Norway they are quite extensive. It might entail the right to communicate with the outside, receiving visitors and giving interviews. Thus Brevik could be with us for a long time, and the same media machine that have been evident since 22/7, could roll on for years to come. ABB is a money machine for the media, Gjems Onstad points out.”

Men moské har de forregnet sig, de gode journalister. Det er ganske vist så sikkert som Allah-hu Akbar i moskéen at Breivik vil blive idømt straf og ikke forvaring, men er det så ensbetydende med at man kan koge suppe på ham i årevis, mens han sidder i sit luksusfængsel og prinser sig som mediestar? – Har man ikke glemt noget? – For eksempel, at også norske fængsler er fyldt til bristepunktet med muslimer? – Og at de næppe vil gøre sig meget håb om at Breivik pludselig konverterer til den ene, rette, den sande tro? – Mon ikke vore kære muslimer for en gangs skyld kan bruge deres færdigheder på et ganske bestemt område til samfundets gavn?

I så fald vil Journalistisk Venstreparti stå med ikke alene et forklaringsproblem, men også et pekuniært. Lad os alle bede!

5 august 2011

Politisk nødvendighed?

Filed under: Fascisme, Kina, Marxisme, Nazislam, Nazisme, Norge, Sovjet/Rusland, Totalitære, Utøya — Tags: — Hodja @ 09:03

Blandt alle omtaler af massemorderen Breivik har jeg hæftet mig ved, at han – på baggrund af eget udsagn – åbenbart ikke var lystmorder, men anså sin grusomme handling for en absolut “nødvendighed”, hvis samfundet skulde ændres.

Men hvordan kan man hægte sine følelser af? Hvordan kan man slå nogen ihjel, man står lige ved siden af?

I virkeligheden er der masser af exempler på at man – ikke mindst i diktaturer (ofte røde! men også sorte eller brune – altså i alle regnbuens farver!) slår folk ihjel med den begrundelse, at det er “nødvendigt” for at kunne ændre samfundet til det bedre…

Blandt alle omtaler af massemorderen Breivik har jeg hæftet mig ved, at han – på baggrund af eget udsagn – åbenbart ikke var lystmorder, men anså sin grusomme handling for en absolut “nødvendighed”, hvis samfundet skulde ændres. Men hvordan kan man hægte sine følelser af? Hvordan kan man slå nogen ihjel, man står lige ved siden af?

I virkeligheden er der masser af exempler på at man – ikke mindst i diktaturer (ofte røde! men også sorte eller brune – altså i alle regnbuens farver!) slår folk ihjel med den begrundelse, at det er “nødvendigt” for at kunne ændre samfundet til det bedre…

Hvis denne “nødvendighed” virkelig var Breiviks politiske tanke, så er den meget nær beslægtet med ovennævnte tanker i diktaturer. Hvad med den hungersnød, som Ukraine blev udsat for? Hvad med de mange arbejdere, der måtte dø for at fuldføre jernbanebyggeri o.l. i det udstrakte Sovjet eller andetsteds? Hvad med Hitlers holocaust? Eller islams sharia- og terrorvirksomhed? Hvad med de røde khmerer? Eller det kinesiske regimes kulturrevolution? Eller Nordkoreas…

Guest: Spydpigen

4 august 2011

Højreradikal?

MASSEMORDER: Breivik er blevet kaldt højreradikal, fordi han er imod islam.

Men det er ikke højreradikalt at være imod den form for religioner. Forsvar for ytringsfrihed, kvinders lighed og sekularitet er faktisk klassiske venstreorienterede dyder. Breiviks påstand om, at han er inspireret af islamkritiske blogs passer heller ikke. Han er inspireret af sine egne syge fortolkninger af disse blogs, ligesom en anden massemorder, Charles Manson, følte sig inspireret af The Beatles’ sang ” Helter Skelter”. Breivik har misforstået de islamkritiske blogs ligeså meget som demokratiske muslimer har misforstået islam.

Af Nicolai Sennels folketingskandidat ( DF); Nordjyske Stiftstidende 2.08.2011

28 juli 2011

Hvordan føles det at blive citeret af en massemorder?

Filed under: Hodja, Kriminalitet, Norge, Terrorism, USA/Canada, Utøya, Vold — Tags: , , — Hodja @ 14:04

Salim Mansur on Anders Behring Breivik

De pæne og deres tone

I disse dage ser vi på baggrund af tragedien i Norge venstrefløjens bekymrede miner i anledning af sammenfaldet mellem de synspunkter, den norske galning lægger frem, og Dansk Folkepartis syn på islam og udlændingepolitikken.

Dansk Folkeparti har, siger man, ikke ansvar for galningens massemord, men man skulle nu nok alligevel overveje en revision af partiprogrammet, hedder det vammelt og fromt.

Og så den forfærdelige sprogbrug, lyder det helligt og forarget. I hvert fald skulle man tænke over, hvorledes man udtrykker sig, hedder det formanende.

Således foranlediget vil det være nærliggende at henvise til Geoffrey Cains bog ”Gensyn med ondskabens ikon” fra 2006. Her drages sammenligninger mellem tegninger og udtryksformer i det nazistiske blad Der Stürmer og vore dages politisk korrekte dagblades valg af tegninger og udtryksformer.

Der Stürmer tegnede jøder som svin. Ekstra Bladet har også tegnet Pia Kjærsgaard som svin. Og entertainer

Michael Carøe har fra scenen kaldt hende en so.

Der Stürmer tegnede jøder som rotter. B.T. har tegnet Pia Kjærsgaard som rotte.

Der Stürmer tegnede jøder som gribbe, og det har Politiken også gjort med Pia Kjærsgaard.

Der Stürmer tegnede jøder som slanger. Kristeligt Dagblad har bragt en tegning af Pia Kjærsgaard som slange og Information har tegnet hende som en modbydelig orm, der har ædt sig gennem en menneskehjerne.

Men det bliver værre endnu, siger Geoffrey Cain. Nazisterne anså jøderne for menneskelig afføring – dog uden at de blev tegnet som sådan i Der Stürmer. Men det er de blevet i Politiken af tegneren Roald Als.

Hvordan mon han ville have tegnet jøder, hvis han var ansat på Der Stürmer i 1930’erne? spørger Geoffrey Cain. Det forekommer mig efter læsning af Geoffrey Cain, at Dansk Folkepartis måde at tænke på og fremføre sine synspunkter virker helt søndagsskoleagtig i sammenligning med, hvad de politisk korrekte og hellige tillader sig.

Undertegnede er ikke medlem af DF, men jeg beundrer partiets folk for deres evne til at argumentere sagligt og sobert trods regnen af ukvemsord – og uden at skulle sammenligne deres modstandere med dyr.

Der spørges med rette, hvorfor Pia Kjærsgaard må have livvagter, men vi får ikke nogen forklaring fra de pæne.

Af John W. Hørbo, pastor emeritus, Jyllandsposten 28.7.2011 

Ondskabens Ikon kan downloades her.

Selvfølgelig – der er jo klart

Canadian Arab Federation official spreads conspiracy theory that Norway attack was Israel’s handiwork.

Ann Coulter om GVM (gamle venstresnoede medier) og massakren i Norge

The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a “gun-loving,” “right-wing,” “fundamentalist Christian,” opposed to “multiculturalism.”

It may as well have thrown in “Fox News-watching” and “global warming skeptic.”

Mere

27 juli 2011

Vold er ikke svaret – Pat Condell

Filed under: Hodja, Labaner, Norge, Politik, Terrorism, Vold — Tags: , , — Hodja @ 14:51

Reaktioner på massemordet i Norge

Filed under: Labaner, Medier DR m.fl., Mord, Norge, Politik, Terrorism, Utøya, Vold — Tags: , , — Hodja @ 07:35

Apologize for what?

The federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed in 1995. At the time, I was in the middle of trying the Blind Sheikh and his underlings for waging a terrorist war in which they bombed the World Trade Center, plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks, and promised a never ending series of bombings. As coverage speculated that Islamists were behind the Oklahoma City attack, lawyers for our 11 defendants immediately sought to have the jury sequestered even though we were many months from the conclusion of trial.
The motion was denied. Judge Michael Mukasey reasoned that we didn’t know what the ultimate outcome of the Oklahoma City investigation would be. For months, our jurors had diligently followed the court’s standard instructions not to allow themselves to be influenced by outside events and press reports. The potential for jury prejudice could be handled by questioning the jurors and instructing them to avoid and disregard news about Oklahoma City. As usual, the judge was right. But that didn’t mean the defense lawyers had been wrong to make the motion.
It was only natural under the circumstances to suspect that Islamic terrorists might be involved. They had already carried out one bombing and were brazenly promising to hit more targets — in particular, government buildings. It was entirely reasonable for the lawyers to surmise that Muslim terrorists might have been involved and, even if they weren’t, that future reporting would include supposition about their involvement. The lawyers were not acting out of “Islamophobia.” Like others in the public eye, they didn’t have the luxury of keeping their thoughts to themselves. They had a professional responsibility to act on the basis of what was known and what it was rational to suspect. A phobia is an irrational fear, and — as the thousands of jihadist atrocities in the ensuing 16 years confirm — there was nothing irrational about the suspicions in question.
This memory moved to the front of my mind the last several days, as it always does when there are reports of another terrorist atrocity. That’s why I began my first post about the Norway attacks on Friday by saying it was “important to be cautious in drawing conclusions when the attacks just happened and the facts are still coming in.” And when I defended profiling in my second post (the media by then — around 7pm — having resorted in defense of Muslims to the very profiling they routinely condemn when it disadvantages Muslims), I noted that the appearance of a blond, Norwegian, non-Muslim suspect certainly did cut against the likelihood of this being an instance of Islamic terrorism. But I also discussed a number of facts that cut in the other direction: a jihadist organization had reportedly claimed responsibility; al Qaeda had tried to attack Oslo last year; al Qaeda is notorious for going after the same target repeatedly; al Qaeda had been looking for American and European recruits because it is easier for them to defeat surveillance in the U.S. and Europe; Mullah Krekar had appeared to threaten attacks against Norway if legal action were taken against him — which it had been just days earlier; and (though I neglected to mention it) the two Norway attacks were nearly simultaneous, another al Qaeda hallmark.
The point was to emphasize that it’s essential to let investigations play out, not to condemn anyone prematurely. There is nothing wrong with analysts engaging in reasonable speculation about what investigators must be thinking, or with the media’s responsibly reporting such theories. But it’s wise in the very early stages after an event to be mindful that we don’t know what has happened, and that we should avoid prematurely convicting individuals or groups.
That’s not enough, though, for James Fallows, the former Jimmy Carter speechwriter who now writes for the Atlantic. He tut-tuts that the Washington Post owes the world an apology because Jen Rubin’s post right after the attack assumed that the Norway attacks were incidents of violent jihadism. (Fallows, naturally, has never apologized for sliming conservatives after Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, among several others.) But Rubin has nothing to apologize for. Yes, she might have been clearer that we did not know exactly who was responsible. But she relied (as I did) on a post by FDD’s Tom Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard which emphasized that we did not yet know who perpetrated the attack. Moreover, the facts she cited gave just cause for suspicion. And her essential point was correct: any act of terrorism demonstrates how ruinous these acts can be, and therefore we need to remain vigilant, not let our guard down. As Jen writes in a follow up post, all of us should bear in mind that early reports are often wrong — we need to be cautious. That ought to be enough said.
Anders Behring Breivik, the deranged savage who committed mass-murder in Oslo last Friday, is a severe critic of Islam. His targets, though, were not Muslims. They were his fellow Norwegians and Norway’s government. As Mark Steyn keenly observed this morning, it is patently absurd that Breivik’s attitudes about Muslims have come to dominate coverage of a horrific episode that appears to have little or nothing to do with Muslims — such that those actually killed become, as Mark puts it, “mere bit players in their own murder” while the legacy media shrieks about “Islamophobia.” As Bruce Bawer pointed out in his trenchant post this weekend (at Pajamas), we are now looking at “a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has become profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”
If we are to remain free and secure, that cannot be allowed to happen. And that starts with not apologizing for the entirely rational fear that future terrorist attacks will be fueled by Islamist ideology, just as thousands of past attacks have been. Prominent Muslims are forever making the most unfounded, most offensive pronouncements, and yet they never have to apologize. Right after 9/11, MPAC’s Salam Marayati told a Los Angeles radio interviewer, “If we are going to look at suspects, we should look at groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” Before becoming a top Obama aide and envoy, Rashad Hussain excoriated the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian as a “politically motivated” “travesty of justice” that fit a “common pattern … of politically motivated prosecutions,” by which the U.S. government exaggerates the “threat to American security” — al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge. CAIR has made a career of rushing to the nearest microphone to discredit the investigation of Muslims who are later found guilty of terrorism. The list goes on and on; only the words “I’m sorry, I was wrong” are never uttered — and never demanded.
We all have a duty to exercise caution if we are going to comment before the facts are fully known. We have no duty to apologize, however, for well founded suspicions and for recognizing the threat Islamism poses to life and to Western liberalism. Our obligation is to remain vigilant — responsibly vigilant, but vigilant nonetheless. In addition to what’s been said here, that message has been repeated by Michelle Malkin, Quin Hillyer, Glenn Reynolds, Aaron Goldstein, John Hinderaker, and Scott Johnson, and it is most welcome.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online
http://www.aina.org/news/20110725154120.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Islamophobia and Mass Murder

Posted GMT 7-25-2011 15:20:43

Bookmark and Share

I have been away from the Internet for the weekend, and return to find myself being fitted out for a supporting role in Friday’s evil slaughter in Norway. The mass murderer Breivik published a 1,500-page “manifesto.” It quotes me, as well as several friends of NR — Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Pipes, Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannan (plus various pieces from NR by Rod Dreher and others) — and many other people, including Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, not to mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence.* Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.
It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken. Parts of it simply cut and paste chunks of the last big killer “manifesto” by Ted Kaczynski, with the occasional [insert-your-cause-here] word substitute replacing the Unabomber’s obsessions with Breivik’s. This would seem an odd technique to use for a sincerely meant political statement. The entire document is strangely anglocentric – in among the citations of NR and The Washington Times, there’s not a lot about Norway.
Nevertheless, Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:

Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.

So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:

Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.

But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent. A Tweeter thinks that “turning this scumbag’s atrocity in Norway into a lesson about how Mark Steyn and his ilk are douchebags seems… opportunistic,” but that’s the least of it. Even by the elastic definitions of “Islamophobia,” the angle being pursued is bizarre and profoundly tasteless: A rambling Internet pdf is trumping the facts on the ground — trumping the specifics of what occurred, and the victims. This man Breivik may think he’s making history and bestriding the geopolitical currents and the clash of civilizations, but in the end he went and shot up his neighbors. Why let his self-aggrandizing bury the reality?
Any of us who write are obliged to weigh our words, and accept the consequences of them. But, when a Norwegian man is citing Locke and Burke as a prelude to gunning down dozens of Norwegian teenagers, he is lost in his own psychoses. Free societies can survive the occasional Breivik. If Norway responds to this as the Left appears to wish, by shriveling even further the bounds of public discourse, freedom will have a tougher time.
By Mark Steyn
National Review Online
http://www.aina.org/news/20110725102043.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Norway Terrorist

Posted GMT 7-25-2011 15:2:53

Bookmark and Share

A year or two ago I was at a dinner party where a gentleman and his wife confronted me about my writing on Islamic terrorism. “Why is it,” he asked irritably, “that terrorism is always called ‘Islamic’? What about ‘Christian’ terrorists?”
“Well, name a Christian terrorist,” I replied. I wasn’t being combative; I was genuinely curious to know whom they considered to be someone committing politically-driven murder and mayhem in the name of Jesus. The sentence was barely out of my mouth before the wife shot back, “Timothy McVeigh.”
McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City took place sixteen years ago. Unlike Muslim fundamentalists who theologically justify their acts of terrorism, McVeigh can not rightly be characterized as a “Christian terrorist,” because he was, by his own admission, not a committed Christian, and he carried out the attack not because God or the Bible commanded him to, but because he hated the U.S. government. And yet after all these years his name remains virtually the sole flimsy example that people have at the ready to challenge what they consider to be the stereotype of Islamic terrorism.
No more. Now a new McVeigh has arisen, a symbol that the Left and Islamic supremacists themselves will use to bludgeon Christian conservatives and critics of jihad for the next sixteen years — Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik is in police custody for carrying out what some are calling Norway’s “Oklahoma City,” a reference to McVeigh’s 1995 bombing, of course. Breivik, who claims to have acted alone, set off a massive bomb that devastated an Oslo government building and killed seven, then traveled to a nearby youth camp for hundreds of teen children of Labour Party politicians, where he proceeded to massacre as many as 90 of them with ruthless, methodical gunfire.
As the news began leaking out about Europe’s deadliest terror attack since the 2003 Madrid train bombing, there was a predictable — and perfectly reasonable — assumption on the part of terrorism experts, the media, and possibly anyone who follows the Clash of Civilizations, that the perpetrators were Islamists. After all, there were plenty of reasons to suspect initially that these were acts of Islamic terrorism: at least one Islamist group initially claimed responsibility (but later retracted it); Muslim extremists cheered the attacks in online chatrooms; Norway is still a target of Islamists burning to avenge the Muhammad cartoons; legal action was finally taken against the radical Mullah Krekarwhom Norway has been sheltering for years, and he threatened retaliation; al Qaeda tried to attack Oslo last year; and, frankly, most terrorism carried out worldwide today is at the hands of jihadists.But the truth was a stunning reversal. Not only is the perpetrator a well-educated, boyishly blond, ethnic Norwegian, he is a self-described Christian conservative bent on sparking a Pan-European resistance movement to oppose — by violence if necessary — the corrosive forces of multiculturalism, Islamic immigration, and “cultural Marxism” that are destroying the fabric of European society and culture. It’s too soon to have all the facts –speculation, as usual, began flying at light-speed over the rumor-mongering internet, including the mystery of a fake Facebook page and the musing that Breivik is himself a jihadist posing as a Christian conservative. But as of this writing, the coldly rational Breivik has apparently confessed to what he described in a 1500-page manifesto as the “systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors.”
But the tragedy won’t end at the lives lost in Norway. Bruce Bawer, the author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom who lives in Norway, notes the broader concern that “legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited by association with this murderous lunatic.” As the European anti-jihad blogger Fjordmanputs it, Breivik

has scored a major victory for his opponents. An agent provocateur seeking to discredit the right-wing conservative sliver of the European political spectrum would have a hard time doing a better job… It is the perfect excuse to persecute and silence opposing voices… We’re heading for dark days.

The Left — including the mainstream media, and stealth jihadists themselves, like the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood legacy group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations — won’t even bother to contain its collective glee over the fact that Breivik is a “right-wing Christian.” The narrative is already being constructed that will use him to tar everyone on the Right, particularly vocal critics of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the same Left that hijacks any and all discussions of Islamic terrorism by jumping up to insist that all Muslims must not be smeared because of the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” that not all terrorism is committed by Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, no responsible anti-jihadist has ever made such claims, but the Left never bothers to concede this. By contrast, instead of living by the standards they demand of the Right,lLeftists will now be perfectly happy to politicize Breivik’s terrorism and use him to tar everyone on the Right — Christians, conservatives, anti-jihadists, the Tea Party — everyone. And in fact, they have already begun attempting to link the Norway terrorist to Sarah Palin, of all people.
Breivik is a terrorist. His targeting of helpless schoolchildren makes him no better than the slaughterers at Beslan. But that doesn’t make everyone concerned about unfettered Islamic immigration, jihad, or the rapid disintegration of Europe’s cultural heritage a terrorist or even a sympathizer. There is no connection between the legitimate, courageous, lawful work of notable anti-jihadists and such evil. No true Christian, conservative, or responsible critic of jihad would condone Breivik’s despicable, cowardly acts or deem them to be in accordance with our beliefs and values. Much less would we celebrate those acts, unlike our Islamist counterparts. But denouncements of Breivik will be purposefully ignored by the Left.
Nor does it make Islamic terrorism any less of a threat. But the Left will use Breivik to divert attention from worldwide jihad, to advance their cultural Marxism, and to demonize the defenders of freedom. To echo Fjordman, we are facing dark days. We must face them with the truth.
By Mark Tapson
Frontpage Magazine

http://www.aina.org/news/20110725100253.htm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tommy Robinson mops the floor with a hostile bully of the BBC

Posted on 26/07/2011 by Eeyore
This was a disgusting attempt at character assasination. Tommy held more than his ground though. I would have liked to ask the host, “I saw you at a soccer game and Bin Laden was in the bleachers. Do you deny being at a stadium with Bin Laden and why would you be at a soccer game with him if you didn’t have the same goals. Also, which of Bin Laden’s 50 years of mutterings do you disagree with?”
It was not an interview but an attempted character assassination. Tommy should have had the right to a bloody lawyer in an interview like this. And to think this is a state funded broadcaster. For shame.

http://tundratabloids.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

July 25, 2011

Pinning Breivik on critics of Islamization

Jerry Philipson

All over the world attempts are being made to pin the blame for the mass murders in Norway on critics of Islam and the rapid Islamization of Western countries. These are patent lies, utter and complete nonsense and part of a broader religious and political agenda.
Anders Behring Breivik bears full responsibility for the atrocities in Oslo. Even if he had help in planning and organizing the bombing and shooting in the end he set off the bomb and pulled the trigger. No one forced him to do either and he could have stoped himself. That is the salient point. No one forced him to do either and he could have stopped himself. He made the decision to go ahead, no one else.
Blaming our actions on those who influence us denies our free will and our ability to make independent decisions, which is of course the essence of man, the very definition of what it means to be human. No, critics of Islam and Islamization aren’t responsible for Breivik’s actions. He is.
Besides, Breivik didn’t need critics of Islam and Islamization to conclude that both were causing great harm to Norway and fundamentally changing the nature and character of the country. All he had to do was look around. Islam and Islamization have had a very harmful effect on the Norwegian people and their values and institutions. That is a sentiment which is gaining traction in Norway as Norwegians come to recognize and understand the danger that Islam and Islamization places them in. Those are hard and cold facts. They are not rationalizations or justifications for Breivik’s acts, because he is a lunatic and there are none, but they do provide a context for what he did.
All he had to do was look around.
Islam’s enablers are already trying to take advantage of the situation. They are trying to take away our freedom of speech and freedom of expression by shutting down criticism of Islam and Islamization, ostensibly to prevent other Breiviks from appearing and acting out like he did but really to further their agenda, which is to make Islam and Islamic law supreme in the West. In that sense Breivik’s actions must have seemed like a great gift and a great opportunity to them because it gives them a chance to use our revulsion in the heat of the moment to strip away our right to freely criticise Islam and Islamization, which would of course be a real boon to them as they try and turn Western countries into Islamic states.
We can’t let them get away with it. Not if we want to survive as free people in free countries, that is.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/all_over_the_world_attempts.html at July 26, 2011 – 01:42:39 AM CDT

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

July 25, 2011

Euro-killer ripped off peaceful Euro-critic

James Lewis

Norway’s “Knight Templar” killer of almost 100 innocent people is hardly a “Christian,” although he is certainly an “extremist.” The liberal media are having a field day confusing millions of people about Christianity and mass murder.
Anders Behring Breivik is in fact a mass murdering terrorist. He has major paranoid psychotic symptoms (see below). Psychiatrists have known for centuries that paranoid psychotics can become killers.
Breivik apparently concocted his personal war ideology based on the medieval Knights Templar — who were disbanded by order of Pope Clement V in 1312. That would be 800 years ago.
In his web manifestothe Euro-killer lifted two sources without crediting their authors:

  • 1. The Unabomber Manifesto, especially on the subject of home-made bombs.
  • 2. A long and scholarly critique of Europe’s cultural Marxism by blogger Fjordman. To the best of my knowledge, neither Fjordman nor his fellow-bloggers have ever come close to advocating violence, much less actually doing any. The only thing Fjordman has in common with the Euro-Killer is that they are both Norwegian.

What the media now call Brevik’s “1,500 page manifesto” is in fact almost completely plagiarized. Brevik just slapped his own title page on the writings of others.
Plagiarizing Fjordman’s scholarly Declaration of European Independence is either a deliberate guilt-by-association smear against Europe’s conservative bloggers, or the Euro-killer has adopted a peaceful political article to his own criminal ends.
We will find out very soon if peaceful conservative bloggers in Europe are now going to be the targets of a hysterical smear campaign, or whether some of them will even be arrested.
This is therefore a very serious smear, since the Politically Correct elite in Europe is quite willing to prosecute peaceful dissidents like Geert Wilders, who was just found innocent by a court of law in the Netherlands, on a charge of hate speech. De Wilders is a peaceful, sober, polite, anti-PC politician, a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands — but you know what can happen to dissenters from the EU Orthodoxy.
Apparently the New York Times believes that Breivik is a Christian — as if Christians go around committing mass murder against innocent civilians. The NYT seems to confuse Christianity with a very different religion, like the one whose followers passed out candy to celebrate the killing of 3,000 innocent civilians in New York City on September 11, 2011.
The Euro-Killer shows diagnostic features of paranoid psychosis. According to Wikipedia’s accurate article on the psychoses,

“The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) [68] assesses the level of 18 symptom constructs of psychosis such as hostility, suspicion,hallucination, and grandiosity.”

Let’s see…

  • 1. Hostility.
  • 2. Suspicion.
  • 3. Hallucination (not known yet)
  • 4. Grandiosity — does re-starting the Knights Templar after 800 years sound like grandiosity to you?

“Delusions of persecution or grandeur” are perhaps the most obvious in this bad guy.
If the media bothered to hire a psychiatrist or clinical social worker, they would find out the answer in half a minute.
Chances are that they won’t bother. They’ve got their story line,
confusing Christianity with the Knights Templar of the 13th century.
History is not their strong suit.
Chris Matthews (whose first name means “Christ-bearer”) will no doubt go on exploiting that kind of ignorance and malice for weeks to come. He knows better, but he’s not going to tell his ignorant TV audience.
This Norwegian horror is therefore a double lesson.
One is a new ideology of murder, concocted by a Norwegian who fits the paranoid schizophrenic profile.
The second lesson is about the behavior of the media.
They are both very bad, but the media are nominally sane.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/euro-killer_ripped_off_peaceful_euro-critic.html at July 26, 2011 – 01:42:57 AM CDT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________