Hodjanernes Blog

28 juli 2011

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.

Michael Coren og Ezra levant om Anders Behring Breivik

Venstrefløjen skyder med spredehagl på alle sine fjender (dvs fortæller om det multikulturelle paradis’s fallit).

Det tyske socialdemokrati gør Sarrazin medansvarlig for Oslo-massakren.

Melanie Phillips: Fanaticism, Mass Murder and the Left

In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens makes a useful point – and also explains why the frenzy of demonisation being directed at writers and thinkers who were name-checked in Breivik’s ‘manifesto’ is quite so vile, as well as deeply stupid.

Observing that Breivik was neither Christian nor conservative but intended to detonate an apocalypse, Stephens writes about this particular pathology:

What it is is millennarian: the belief that all manner of redemptive possibilities lie on just the other side of a crucible of unspeakable chaos and suffering. At his arrest, Breivik called his acts ‘atrocious but necessary.’ Stalin and other Marxists so despised by Breivik might have said the same thing about party purges or the liquidation of the kulaks.

These are the politics that have largely defined our age and which conservatives have, for the most part, been foremost in opposing. To attempt to tar them with Breivik’s name is worse than a slur; it’s a concession to a killer with pretensions of intellectual sophistication. And it’s a misunderstanding of what he was all about.

Indeed. That’s why the relationship between even ultra-nationalistic thinking and acts of terror is very different indeed from the relationship between Islamist radicalism and Islamic acts of terror. The former is characterised by terrorism perpetrated in pursuit of discrete and limited aims. The latter aims to effect an apocalypse in order to bring about the perfection of the world. The former may be appalling in its effects but is nevertheless fundamentally rational since its goal, however noxious, is achievable. The latter is fundamentally irrational since its goal is a utopian fantasy. Consequently those who are in the grip of millenarian apocalyptic fantasies tend to be lunatics or psychopaths; and so it is as ridiculous to ascribe the pathologically murderous behaviour of Breivik to political rage as it would be to do so in the case of Stalin, Hitler or Ahmadinejad.

There is however yet another aspect of the millenarian mindset which should not be overlooked. In my book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power I consider at some length the millenarian fantasies not just of modern-day Islamists but also of the modern left. (I owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Richard Landes, who generously talked me through millenarian theories when I was writing my book some two years ago and whose own magnificent book on the subject, Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of Millennial Experience, has just been published.)

All the totemic creeds of today’s ‘progressive’ classes — environmentalism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, anti-Zionism and so on — are millenarian, in that they all posit in their different ways the perfection of the world (just like, in their time, the Inquisition, Stalinism and fascism).

Consequently, today’s militantly secular leftists display some astonishing similarities to both modern-day Islamists and medieval Christian fanatics. There is the same belief in the Revealed Truth – Revealed, that is, to them alone – from which no-one is permitted to dissent. Anyone who denies it is a heretic and has to be destroyed. Because the left believes it embodies virtue — on account of its desire to perfect the world – anyone who dissents or opposes it is evil. Because it is Manichean, all who are not left-wing are right-wing (even if they are in fact liberal). So all who oppose the left are evil right-wingers who must be destroyed. That to leftists is a moral project.

They are therefore in effect a modern secular Inquisition. They are in the same mould as the religious and political totalitarian tyrannies of the past; they make in this respect common cause with the Islamists whose agenda poses a mortal threat to their own lives and liberties and most cherished beliefs; and they share the characteristic of a closed thought system which is totally impervious to reason and destroys all who challenge it with the monsters of history and Anders Behring Breivik.

That is surely why the left seized upon the Norway atrocity with demented joy and detonated a terrifying eruption of distortion and demonisation, irrationality, hatred and sheer blood-lust as it saw in the ravings of Anders Behring Breivik the mother and father of all smears which it could use to crush those who refuse to surrender to cultural totalitarianism. So those of us who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against their enemies found ourselves – and by implication, the many millions who share these mainstream views – grotesquely damned as accessories to mass murder by those who actually cheer on religious fascists and genocidal madmen and who are set upon silencing all who resist.

The appalling actions of a Norwegian psychopath tell us next to nothing about our society. But the reaction to that atrocity tells us a great deal more.

Læs det hele.

(Millenarisme er forestillinger om en fremtidig og total transformation af verden, der bæres af tilhængere af religiøse, politiske eller sociale bevægelser; oftest drejer det sig religiøse forestillinger om verdens undergang, en ny tids komme og forventningen om en snarlig udfrielse fra den normale dennesidige verden)

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.”


27 juli 2011

CrossTalk on Breivik: Knowing Terror

Has the Oslo bombing shed light on a dangerous tendency sweeping across Europe?

Or is it just an exception that a white right-wing Norwegian is behind the carnage? Will the tragedy make Europeans rethink their political convictions? And what poses a real danger to Europe — right-wing extremists or immigrants from Muslim countries? CrossTalking with Azad Ali and Stephen Gash on July 27.

Vold er ikke svaret – Pat Condell

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

Norwegian gunman listened to “Lord of the Rings” music during massacre

Filed under: Hodja, Labaner, Norge, Terrorism, Utøya, Vold — Tags: , — Hodja @ 08:48

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


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


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



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.


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

26 juli 2011

BBC: Tommy Robinson (EDL) om den norske terrorist