The Oslo-bomber

[G M]

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/07/25/anders-breivik-post-modern-crusader/

Anders Breivik, post-modern Crusader

 

posted at 3:48 pm on July 25, 2011 by J.E. Dyer


 

Sometimes the life of a blogger is fraught with tedium and annoyance.  It can also be touched simultaneously by profound sadness.  I’ve been steeping in a brew concocted from these ingredients, perusing the 1518-page “2083” manifesto of the Norwegian mass murderer so you don’t have to.
 


As My Pet Jawa reports, parts of “2083” were copied from the Unabomber’s manifesto.  But that gives a very incomplete impression of what makes this guy tick.  The overarching theme of “2083” is that he, and his confreres in the “PCCTS Knights Templar,” are modern-day Crusaders.  They are not what most other Christians would call Christian; Anders is very explicit that having a relationship with Jesus Christ is not his thing.  He’s a “cultural” Christian, and the PCCTS Knights Templar (expansion of PCCTS below) are happy to accept members who are, in Breivik’s words, “Christian agnostics” and “Christian atheists.”  He uses “Christian” as a modifier signifying primarily Western/European cultural identity; he does speak of brotherhood with African and Asian Christians, but the context of the references is clearly cultural.
 


Tellingly, there is not one reference in “2083” to the power of spiritual Christianity deriving from the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  For spiritual Christians, that’s the bottom line.  It’s what you say, what you talk about, your confession of faith.  Breivik doesn’t allude to it at all.  Again, it’s not his thing.  He doesn’t think of Christianity as transforming hearts and lives for the better.  He thinks of it as a positive, unifying symbol-set, one that evokes the energy, reason, and strength of the traditional culture of Europe.
 


Here are his words:
 



3.139 Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom – reforming our suicidal Church
 


A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?
 


If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. (p. 1307)
 


And this:
 



I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;
 


“Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.”
 


Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… (p. 1344)
 


And this:
 



If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practising Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (cultural Christian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit.
 


…
 


Choosing to fight under the banner of the cross, does not constitute that you have to reject your Odinistic heritage in any way or form.
 


…
 


As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons.
 


…
 


As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;
 


- That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage.
 


The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority).
 


It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).
 


So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).
 


The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order.
 


(C)reating a religious order would be counter-productive as a majority of Europe’s armed resistance fighters are agnostics, atheists or relatively secular Christians. The organisation is therefore considered a moderate Christian identity organisation and not a religious order. (p. 1360-on)
 


Predictably, Breivik invokes the Nietzschean complaint that Christianity is too weak and self-effacing for its own good:
 



The Judeo-Christian religions played an important and influential role in building the once mighty West but we also discovered that these religions contained a serious flaw that has sewed the seeds of the suicidal demise of the indigenous peoples of Western Europe and our cultures. This flaw was identified by the brilliant German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who described it as “an inversion of morality” whereby the weak, the poor, the meek, the oppressed and the wretched are virtuous and blessed by God whereas the strong, the wealthy, the noble and the powerful are the immoral and damned by the vengeful almighty Yahweh for eternity.
 


Nietzsche, with great insight and perception, stated that Christianity would be abandoned en masse in the twentieth century but that Westerners would still cling to this inversion of morality. I then described how Marxists and Liberals exploit this inversion of morality by creating large numbers of “victim groups“, groups who form minorities in Western society but whose “victim status” is used to dictate morality to the majority. In Western – European – societies, the weak now lead the strong, indeed, the game being played in these societies is not to make the weak strong it is to make the strong weak. (p. 391)
 


But he despises National Socialists (referred to by the initials NS throughout the text) and has only negative things to say about Hitler.  In fact, Breivik devotes pages to arguing against the Nazi perspective on cultural unity and power.  Breivik’s unifying idea and symbology are the Crusades and the Knights Templar.  What he wants Christian Europe (and indeed, all Christendom) to get back to is his concept of the church militant in the Crusades era:  a church that forms the cultural core of society and motivates the people to – if you will – defend Christianity forward.  His plan for a revitalized cultural-Christian Europe involves reclaiming Lebanon for Christianity (yes, this figures very large in the manifesto), supporting Christians in Africa and Asia in driving Muslims and cultural relativists out of their lands, and helping Israeli Jews build the Third Temple in Jerusalem.
 


All his concepts are political and militant.  He advocates holding a “Great Christian Congress” (p. 1136) at which the new Knights Templar-based authorities of Europe reorganize the church for its own good.  Protestantism has been an unmitigated disaster, and needs to be winnowed out.  (Breivik was baptized a Protestant but admires the political history, ritual, organization, and aesthetics of the Catholic Church.)  The church will be assigned in his restored cultural order to a number of tasks, and given some important powers, but one thing it will not have is the autonomy to evolve away from his militant ideal for it.
 


The PCCTS Knights Templar are named after the original Knights Templar: the “Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici,” or Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.  An anonymous group of Europeans met in London in 2002 to re-found the order, and Breivik was present at the creation.  Its program for reclaiming Europe and the world is oriented on the year 2083, presumably because that year will mark the 400th anniversary of the Battle of Vienna.
 


And it is a warlike program, to say the least.  Cultural Marxists (e.g., the people he killed in the government offices), along with Muslims, will be given an ultimatum to embrace cultural Christianity by 1 January 2020, or be killed or driven out.  In the aftermath of the ultimatum, WMD will be used on them.  Breivik devotes pages of text to various methods of acquiring chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons:  from the existing governments of Europe, from crime syndicates, directly from Islamist states and terrorist groups (because why not?).
 


He justifies this bloodthirsty program on the basis of the indulgences granted to “all future Crusaders” by Pope Urban II in 1095; on the “duty to crusade” which he reads into the church’s canon law; and on the calls of subsequent popes to mount new crusades. (p. 1324)
 


Have I mentioned that Breivik is an avid player of World of Warcraft?  He reports taking an entire year off from paid employment to play it full time.  In this and other ways he is very much a product of modern Western culture – and that is where the profound sadness comes in.  He has reached the age of 32 with an obvious sense of rootlessness, a set of grievances against society (some of them justified), and no spiritual or emotional defenses against resorting to a kinetic Manichaeism in his approach to politics and life.  Here is part of his account of his teenage years in Oslo:
 



We used to hang out with GSV crew, or B-Gjengen as they are popularly called today, a Muslim Pakistani gang, quite violent even back then. “Gang alliances” was a part of our everyday life at that point and assured that you avoided threats and harassment. Alliances with the right people guaranteed safe passage everywhere without the risk of being subdued and robbed (Jizya), beaten or harassed. We had close ties with B-Gjengen (B-Gang) and A-Gjengen (A-Gang), both Muslim Pakistani gangs through my best friend Arsalan who was also a Pakistani. Even at that time, the Muslim gangs were very dominating in Oslo East and in inner city Oslo. They even arranged “raids” in Oslo West occasionally, subduing the native youths (kuffars) and collecting Jizya from them (in the form of cell phones, cash, sunglasses etc.). I remember they systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations. Muslim youths called the ethnic Norwegians “poteter” (potatoes, a derogatory term used by Muslims to describe ethnic Norwegians). These people occasionally raped the so called “potato whores”. In Oslo, as an ethnic Norwegian youth aged 14-18 you were restricted if you didn’t have affiliations to the Muslim gangs. Your travel was restricted to your own neighbourhoods in Oslo West and certain central points in the city. Unless you had Muslim contacts you could easily be subject to harassment, beatings and robbery. Our alliances with the Muslim gangs were strictly seen as a necessity for us, at least for me. We, however, due to our alliances had the freedom of movement. As a result of our alliances we were allowed to have a relaxing and secure position on the West side of Oslo among our age group. Think of it as being local “warlords” for certain “kuffar areas”, which were regulated by the only dominant force, Muslim gangs collaberating with anarcho-Marxist networks.
 


Many of these groups claim to be tolerant and anti-fascist, but yet, I have never met anyone as hypocritical, racist and fascist as the people whom I used to call friends and allies. The media glorifies them while they wreck havoc across the city, rob and plunder. Yet, any attempts their victims do to consolidate are harshly condemned by all aspects of the cultural establishment as racism and Nazism. I have witnessed the double standards and hypocrisy with my own eyes, it is hard to ignore. I was one of the protected “potatoes”, having friends and allies in the Jihadi-racist gangs such as the A and B gang and many other Muslim gangs.
 


I gradually became appalled by the mentality, actions and hypocrisy of what he calls the “Marxist-Jihadi youth” movement of Oslo disguised under more socially acceptable brands such as: “SOS Rasisme”, “Youth against Racism”, Blitz who literally hijacked segments of the hiphop movement and used it as a front for recruitment.
 


I have personally heard of and witnessed hundreds of Jihadi-racist attacks, more than 90% of them aimed at helpless Norwegian youth (who themselves are brought up to be “suicidally” tolerant and therefore are completely unprepared mentally for attacks such as these). This happens while the Marxist networks in the hiphop movement and the cultural establishment silently and indirectly condone it. There is absolutely no political will to ensure that justice is served on behalf of these victims. I remember at one point thinking; “This system makes me sick”.  (p. 1389)
 


Breivik’s complaint is that what he was supposed to believe in – who he was supposed to be, as a member of a culture – offered him no protection, safety, or dignity.  He goes on to recount, one by one, the occasions on which he was directly attacked or threatened in the years after he broke with his “gang alliances” (starting on p. 1393).  He also observes, matter-of-factly, that a natural-selection process kicked in after the mid-teenage years, when students are channeled into academic or technical/trades education.  The Muslim teens almost all went into vocational training (or left school entirely), which meant they and the ethnic Norwegians were no longer in the same schools, and no longer had to meet in the same neighborhoods.
 


The void where the reasons for cultural unity should be is a real source of sorrow here, at least for me.  Breivik blames it, in effect, on “cultural Marxism” (his cultural commentary is all derivative):  the process of tearing down the traditional shibboleths of a culture in order to leave populations mentally defenseless against collectivism.  And this isn’t invalid, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.  The problem for Europe isn’t so much what it no longer is, as that there is no compelling vision for what it ought to be.
 


That is most clearly apparent in the video Breivik posted to explain the “2083” concept.  One of the first things that struck me in watching the video was that it seemed curiously American in tone.  Breivik’s imagery for depicting the downfall of Europe includes thematic “traffic signs,” which of course are a universal phenomenon, but also shows the boy “Billy” from the Family Circus cartoon representing Europe – clearly as a fresh-faced, defenseless youth – and depicts the suicide of the West via a caricature of Uncle Sam with a pistol in his mouth.  In the text, at the inflection point of the video when it transitions from lament to a plan for the future, Breivik quotes Thomas Jefferson on the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
 


Yet the “2083” manifesto is very Euro-centric.  It is not about the US, or the distinctly American political idea, and it deals with the Americas as a whole very little.  Breivik clearly sees Europe as having a meaningful identity of its own, but he can’t come up with an identifiably European image to convey that as a modern reality.  As the video crescendos, he harks back to the Middle Ages, lining up one image after another of armored knights in battle (or in heroic stances).  His hall of European fame is a series of military commanders who fought against Muslim armies in centuries past (the most recent being Czar Nicholas I in the 19th century).
 


These images are not compelling to conservatives in the US, and I don’t see any evidence that they are the organizing idea for classical-liberal thinkers or political parties in Europe.  There is literally no mainstream interest in refighting the Crusades or wrestling the church down and making her culturally militant on the model of the Middle Ages.  There is a varying level of political engagement among Christians:  some are very left-leaning, others are conservative (or liberal in the classical European sense), many of both kinds have little interest in politics, and others find politics important and rewarding.  Anders Breivik’s model of a post-modern Knight Templar resonates not at all with the actual beliefs and stances of conservatives, Christians, or conservative Christians.
 


That is partly because Breivik seeks a form of tribal symbology and validation that modern society has grown comparatively comfortable without.  Mainstream classical-liberalism in Europe doesn’t offer the mystical power of either Norse gods or a Latin-speaking church with its own army of knights.  These symbols of cultural connection to the transcendent haven’t been Christianity’s reality for centuries; and in politics, there has been a very long trend toward prosaic bureaucratic consultation, which no one envisions operating outside of.  There’s no way to torture modern Christianity or modern social or political conservatism into the Crusader mold – which is why Breivik had to find his calling elsewhere.
 


We can hope – I certainly do – that the flurry of mistargeted denunciations from the political left will die down quickly.  All you have to do to see that conservatives and Christians are not responsible for Anders Breivik is read 1500 pages of his musings.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor any particular religious denomination, political party, or school of thought in Europe, is “responsible” for Breivik; he did his own research and made his own choices, and he had alternatives.  He is undoubtedly not the only young European who wishes for a more compelling, inspiring, successful, and victorious cultural idea of Europe to give his life meaning.   But he is the only one who decided to blow up a building and go on a shooting rampage.
 


J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

[Crafty_Dog]

Very interesting!

[bigdog]

Here is an article from Scientific American that might be of interest here.  It was written in the wake of the Rep. Giffords shooting in AZ, but seems applicable here.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=anger-management-self-control

[G M]

Here is an article from Scientific American that might be of interest here.  It was written in the wake of the Rep. Giffords shooting in AZ, but seems applicable here.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=anger-management-self-control

Meh. With the Tucson shooter, he appears to be acting out of a low functioning delusional state rather than rage. Using the FBI's criminal investigative analysis typology, the Tucson shooter is a "disorganized offender" who probably acted with very little planning or preperation. From the information currently available about the Oslo-bomber, he seems like a individual capable of advanced long term planning, although his reality testing is questionable given the disparity of his intended outcome and the likely actual outcome. Just as Timothy McVeigh expected the OK bombing to launch a widespread revolt against the US gov't and instead resulted in severe damage to the militia movement, I expect the Oslo-bomber will be disappointed when his crusade fails to materialize and instead spurs a european backlash.

Then again, acts of terrorism didn't stop Bill Ayers from tenure or starting Buraq's political career.

[Crafty_Dog]

Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer
In his 1,500-page manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik slides alarmingly from a legitimate concern about the rise of Islam in Europe to propose 'terror as a method for waking up the masses.'
Article
Comments (417)
MORE IN OPINION »
EmailPrint
Save This
↓ More



+ More
Text
By BRUCE BAWER

When bombs exploded on Friday in a compound of government office buildings in the heart of Oslo, I assumed, as did pretty much everyone, that the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists. But over the course of the day—as the bombings were overshadowed by the gunning down of dozens of young people at a Labor Party youth camp on a nearby island, Utøya—it emerged that these atrocities were not the work of an international jihadist organization. Instead, the perpetrator was a 32-year-old Oslo native named Anders Behring Breivik. He was motivated by a hostility to multicultural policies that, in his view, are leading his country down the path to Islamization. His response was a murderous rampage that has taken the lives of at least 92 people.

It came as stunning news that Norway had been attacked by a blond, blue-eyed, anti-Islamic terrorist. It should not have been: Several of us who have written about the rise of Islam in Europe have warned that the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the attendant challenges would result in the emergence of extremists like Breivik.

But I was stunned to discover on Saturday that Breivik was a reader of my own work, including my book "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within." In comments posted in 2009 on a Norwegian blog, document.no, Breivik expressed admiration for my writings, but criticized me for not being a cultural conservative (although he was pleased that I was not a Marxist, either).

Later on Saturday came news of a 1,500-page manifesto, entitled "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," that Breivik had recently written and posted online. The first half, in which he indicts the European cultural elite for permitting Islam to take root in Europe, makes it clear that he is both highly intelligent and very well read in European history and the history of modern ideas.

In the second half he describes himself as having revived the Knights Templar. He also outlines in extreme detail how he and his fellow anti-jihadists can acquire weapons, ammunition and body armor and thereupon proceed to use "terror as a method for waking up the masses" to the danger posed by Islam. This makes it clear he is completely insane.

View Full Image

Associated Press
A victim is treated outside government buildings in the centre of Oslo, July 22, 2011.

In his manifesto, which is written in such good English that one wonders whether he had the assistance of a native speaker, Breivik quotes approvingly and at length from my work, mentioning my name 22 times. It is chilling to think that blog entries that I composed in my home in west Oslo over the past couple of years were being read and copied out by this future mass-murderer in his home in west Oslo.

It is also chilling to see the way he moves from a legitimate concern about genuine problems to an unspeakably evil "solution." In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labor Party, Norway's dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe—and thus guilty of treason.

The Oslo bombing was intended to be an execution of the party's current leaders. The massacre at the camp—where young would-be politicians gathered to hear speeches by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland—was meant to destroy its next generation of leaders.

During the hours when I thought that Oslo had been attacked by jihadists, I wept for the city that has been my home for many years. And I hoped Norwegian leaders would respond to this act of violence by taking a more responsible approach to the problems they face in connection with Islam. When it emerged that these acts of terror were the work of a native Norwegian who thought he was striking a blow against jihadism and its enablers, it was immediately clear to me that his violence will deal a heavy blow to an urgent cause.

Norway, like the rest of Europe, is in serious trouble. Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in rapidly growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with Shariah law. (According to a poll conducted by the Telegraph, 40% of British Muslims want Shariah implemented in predominantly Muslim parts of the United Kingdom.)

Muslim gay-bashing is driving gays out of Amsterdam. Muslim Jew-bashing is driving Jews out of Gothenburg, Sweden. And let's not forget about the shameful trials of politician Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and historian Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, which demonstrate how the fear of Muslim wrath is squelching the freedom of speech of those who dare to criticize Islam.

There is reason to be deeply concerned about all these things, and to want to see them addressed forcefully by government leaders who care about the preservation of individual liberty and human rights. But this cause has been seriously damaged by Anders Behring Breivik.

In Norway, to speak negatively about any aspect of the Muslim faith has always been a touchy matter, inviting charges of "Islamophobia" and racism. It will, I fear, be a great deal more difficult to broach these issues now that this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.

Mr. Bawer is a literary critic who lives in Oslo. He is the author, most recently, of "Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom" (Doubleday, 2009).

[Hello Kitty]

I discussed this quite a bit today.
I don't approve of his actions one bit first off and aside from his rantings about Christians, I will say that I personally don't like multiculturalism, and not from racist stand point.
What is it our different cultures provide us?
Roots, identity, values, and beliefs.
It seems to may and others that I have spoken to, that in this day and age of political correctness, that anyone wanting to guard their culture instead of give it away to immigrants and watch whilst they parade the flags of their native lands in the streets of a country foriegn to them, is branded a racist, particularly when that individual is of European descent. The Caucasians have conquered lands on every continent with the exception of Antarctica and perhaps the rest of the world has an axe to grind with Caucasians. I don't know. I do know that Whites aren't allowed to guard their heritage the way that other ethicities are without having their ethnic views called into question.
My girlfriend (a Mexican, studying for her doctorate, agrees). If someone here in Mexico, went about waving an American flag here in protest of the Mexican government's treatment of them, they'd have none of it, but it goes on in the US and other European countries daily. Google any Muslim protests in England or France, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
Again, I abhore Breviek's actions. I will say that perhaps keeping one's borders closed is probably in a country's best interest. There are values (perhaps all of which are right - to the respective people that hold them, that shouldn't necessarily be mixed or held under the flag of one country).
Food for thought.

[G M]

I doubt very much this is a deeply felt conviction for the bomber. It looks to me like he was looking for a reason to kill rather than killing for a reason.

[Hello Kitty]

You're probably right GM. The year off doing nothing other than playing World of Warcraft is very telling.
Please forgive the typos above. It was late and I was tired.

[G M]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/25/from-norway-to-hell/


Details are still coming out, but it appears that Breivik acted alone.  Certainly there is no mass political party that shares his views.  There has always been a nasty strain of hatred in Norway; not only does the name ‘quisling‘ come from the enthusiastic puppet ruler of Norway during the German occupation, but Norway’s Nobel prizewinning novelist Knut Hamsun was a pig of a Nazi as well.  (After Hitler’s death a grief striken Hamsun eulogized him as “a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations.” ) Twenty years ago I spent several weeks driving through Norway and heard a lot of fear (and in some cases hatred) directed towards Muslim immigrants.  Nevertheless, there is no substantial neo-Nazi party in Norway and by and large it remains one of the world’s more tolerant and outward looking countries.  Breivik doesn’t herald an era of fascism in Norway, but he demonstrates the persistence of the dark forces that modernization (democracy plus affluence) was supposed to cure.
 
The Norwegian horror says less about any shortcomings in Norwegian life and culture than about modern life generally.  It reminds us of the profoundly unsettling truth that modernization may lead to more violence and more death than ever before.
 
Modernization is not just more golden arches and more bloggers.  It is also about accelerating social change.  Capitalism drives technological change and technological change feeds on itself the more of it we have, the more we get.  (Think of the way that advances in computer technology feed into the speed of scientific advance as slide rules yield to PCs and as graduate students in third rate universities now have access to computing power and information that university professors at MIT couldn’t get thirty years ago.)
 
Technological change, generally speaking, drives increased affluence: as humanity masters the natural environment we get more and more stuff with less and less work.  So far, so good: this is what McDonald’s peace theory predicts.
 
But here’s a catch: that technological change also drives social change.  Factories move to China.  Immigrants move to Norway bringing strange ideas.  The social welfare states of western Europe creak under the strain.
 
This accelerating, unpredictable and destabilizing change can cause individuals and social groups to become unhinged: to lose their way in the confusion and mystery of modern life.  Blue collar factory workers lose their jobs by the millions; some adapt, some endure, a few go postal.  The upper middle class feels the earth shake beneath its feet as old certainties are challenged and old ways of making a living cease to work.  Most go about their business; some, like Ted Kaczynski, flip out to the Dark Side.
 
When a whole society is stressed by more change than it knows what to do with, the Dark Side gets crowded.  People flip out in sects and groups rather than one by one.  We see that in many Muslim countries today where the appeal of terrorists is strengthened by a pervasive sense of social frustration.  Sometimes whole countries and whole nationalities flip.  We saw it in the Bolshevik madness in Russia, the Fascist epidemic that swept Europe in the 1920s and 1930s; we saw it in Iran in 1979.  The Serbs and the Hutus went over the edge in the 1990s.
 
Managing the kind of change now sweeping the world is hard.  Financial markets are harder to regulate as IT wizards develop ever more complex securities and more rapid fire trade programs.  More open national economies are more vulnerable to international disruptions and less responsive to old fashioned Keynesian cures.  Wealth descends overnight on Ireland, Iceland and Greece, for example and vanishes just as fast. Millions of people enter the political process as in Thailand, Syria and Egypt and old elites must find ways to adjust to new forces.
 
Norway handles all this reasonably well but even there we have someone like a Breivik: obviously intelligent, focused and, in a certain dark way, gifted.  In countries less well positioned than Norway, where governing authorities are less capable, and where the population’s unsatisfied demands are more urgent, the Breiviks find followers and friends.
 
The inescapable reality is that the very forces creating our affluent, modern and democratic world also generate violent antagonism.  Breivik, like Al-Qaeda and like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, is the shadow of progress.  When conditions are right, the lone psychopath becomes a cult leader; in a perfect storm when everything breaks his way, the psychopath becomes Fuehrer.

[JDN]

While I happen to be one of those Nordic/Germanic people that Breivik is intent of preserving I find his actions deplorable and anyone who
supports them. 

Interesting how the far right white supremacists have aligned themselves with Israel.  Israel needs and deserves friends, but not this type.
"Friends" like these are why Israel exists.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/25/norway-shooter-anders-breivik-s-zionism-in-line-with-pro-israel-european-right.html

[G M]

Utterly bogus. This is nothing more than the anti-semites of the left trying to target Israel and the anti-jihadist movement the same way they targeted Sarah Palin for the Tucson shooting.

Was the environmental movement responsible for the Unabomber(from whom the Oslo-bomber cut and pasted some of his manifesto)?

Does Al Gore bear responsibility for this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

An NBC News producer who called the building to find out what was going on had a brief telephone conversation with the man when he came on the line unexpectedly. He identified himself as James J. Lee and said, “I have a gun and I have a bomb. ... I have several bombs strapped to my body ready to go off.”

NBC News informed Montgomery County authorities of the conversation as the producer spoke to the man for about 10 minutes. NBC News did not report the conversation until the hostage situation had been resolved.

Speaking to reporters, Manger would not release the man’s identity, but numerous law enforcement authorities gave NBC News the same name — James J. Lee. Lee, 43, was a longtime protester at the building who was sentenced to six months of supervised probation for disorderly conduct in March 2008.
 
Manger said the suspect held the hostages in the lobby area of the first floor. He said police spent several hours negotiating with the armed man after he entered the suburban Washington building about 1 p.m.
The building in the close-in suburb of Washington was safely evacuated, including the Discovery Kids Place day care center, and none of the 1,900 people who work in the building were hurt.
 
‘The planet does not need humans’
Lee appears to have posted environmental and population-control demands online, saying humans are ruining the planet and that Discovery should develop programs to sound the alarm.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it,” the alleged manifesto reads, adding:

“Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

Court records show that Lee was arrested Feb. 21, 2008, on the sixth day of a protest at the Discovery building. At the time of his conviction in March 2008, he was identified as being from San Diego.

Police were called to the scene when a crowd that had gathered began growing “unruly” as Lee threw thousands of dollars of cash into the air, some of it still in shrink-wrapped packages, police said at the time. (Lee was found not guilty of littering.)
 
Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”

[JDN]

Did you read the WHOLE article?  Even the quote from the Jerusalem Post?  This is not an isolated incident.  Rather strange bedfellows.  

[G M]

Did you read the WHOLE article?  Even the quote from the Jerusalem Post?  This is not an isolated incident.  Rather strange bedfellows.  

Yes, more leftist propaganda that a leftist anti-semite such as yourself can't wait to swallow.

[G M]

http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

Profile of the ideas of another monster.

Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl, who had infiltrated and joined the Weather Underground, described their post-revolution governing plans for the United States in this video taken from the 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide." The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism.

Here's a transcript of his interview:


I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious."

-- Larry Grathwohl, former member of the Weather Underground

[Hello Kitty]

@ JDN - it isn't as though the left isn't without it's fair share of radicals that are willing to kill. In fact, it could be argued that the Left routinely utilizes their position of "weakness" as a ploy to gain more and more power whereby, they intend to push their policies even further. It is no different than what Stalin did. Name a Right wing radical that killed more than Stalin did. You can't.
@ GM - There is an ever groing rift in this country (and others, which prompted the statement that perhaps some people don't belong under the same flag), and my question is two fold:
A. What can be done to mend the current problem globaly, of nations that house such diverse personalities, without bloodshed?
B. Going in the opposite direction of acceptance of multiculturalism, to individual sovereignty, at what level do we draw the line in terms of country size, government responsibilities (and intrusions upon personal freedoms)?

I'm in complete agreeance with you point on the relation of technology and social change, and these days, there is no escaping this fact. The question would be how to manage it properly, in a way that benefits all that want to work and do something productive with their lives. My fear is that this would lead to a global economy, leading to a global currency, amongst other things, further driving integration. With integration, comes loss of personal freedoms.
Perhaps humans are now, as a glass of water that has been tainted with oil. There simply isn't a simple way to separate the two.
I'm enjoying the thread and discussion.

[Crafty_Dog]

JDN's article contains many interesting elements, including the slime of GB as anti-semitic.  I sense the writer struggling with the cognitive dissonance presented to the chattering class perspective.

That said, it certainly is worth noting the offers of alliance are from forces that were once genuine enemies of Jews everywhere!!!

The Pravdas struggle mightily to stain Christians with the deeds of this pyscho killer, even though by his own words he has no belief in Jesus, and sees things in terms of, to use academic Samuel Huntington's famous term "a clash of civilizations"-- so his analysis is certainly not a new one or outside of previously accepted discourse!  The Pravdas paint with labels like "far right extremists", "anti-immigrant", "bigotry", and "hatred" to avoid the fact that Euro parties of the right have risen by becoming the voice of defending TOLERANCE and REASON of the Judeo-Christian culture.

   

[Cranewings]

@ GM - There is an ever groing rift in this country (and others, which prompted the statement that perhaps some people don't belong under the same flag), and my question is two fold:
A. What can be done to mend the current problem globaly, of nations that house such diverse personalities, without bloodshed?
B. Going in the opposite direction of acceptance of multiculturalism, to individual sovereignty, at what level do we draw the line in terms of country size, government responsibilities (and intrusions upon personal freedoms)?

If I could put in my two cents.

For A - I think that the more powerful groups have to accept that times are a changin'. In Norway, the majority are going to find more and more people from other countries. I think they should do everything they can legally to ensure their individual freedoms, and try to preserve them once they are no longer the majority.

B - I don't think that any nation really has an obligation to take on immigrants. I don't think you can really fault a people for wanting it to end. But once the people are there, the cat is out of the bag. I think it is wrong to step on any person's privacy or individual freedom because of their political or religious affiliation.

[Crafty_Dog]

Pasting here Rachel's post from The Power of Word:

An Arab woman from Qatar taught me how to mourn the Norwegian children.

I didn’t even hear about the massacre in Norway until Sunday night. When it occurred on Friday, I was too busy with my Shabbos preparations to check the news on the internet. Saturday night, I didn’t even turn on my computer, and I don't have a television. Sunday night, one of the women who attends a class in my home mentioned that a right-wing terrorist had gone on a shooting spree in Norway and many people were dead, but after the class I was too tired to look at the news.

Finally, on Monday night, I went online. First, I looked up the latest developments in the Leiby Kletzky murder case. I read the statement issued by Leiby’s parents after the shiva. It was followed by a sampling of the thousands of condolence messages received by the Kletzkys. One in particular caught my eye, and then my heart. It was from an Arab woman in Qatar. It read:

    “My deepest condolences to the parents, especially Leiby’s mother. As a mother of 2 boys, I know what a long, long journey it is for a mother to bring up her baby to be 9 years old. To carry a baby for 9 months, give birth, struggle with sleepless nights, ailments, aches and pains, the first step, first smile, first fall, going from milestone to milestone, cheering with them, crying with them, worrying with them, wearing your heart on your sleeve every moment of the day. These are precious moments etched in our hearts forever. And then, suddenly, cruelly and horribly, your child is snatched from you, and in one second your life is completely and utterly destroyed. I pray that God help you find inner strength to cope with this immense tragedy, for the sake of your daughters, your husband and all the others who need you in their lives. I cried for your son, and I cried for your heart that will forever have a piece missing. With deepest sympathy, Carmen Ali from Qatar.”

Then I googled the Norway massacre. I read about the bombing in Oslo and then the shooting spree on Utoya Island, where youth from Norway’s Labor Party were holding a summer camp. I read that 92 people were dead, most of them teenagers. I read that the terrorist was a right-wing extremist who hated Muslims (and apparently a lot of other people). I shook my head, muttered, “How horrible!” and went to bed.

This morning, however, when I was doing my heshbon hanefesh (review of yesterday’s spiritual failures and victories), I realized that there was something terribly wrong with my reaction to Norway’s tragedy. For two weeks, ever since the death of Leiby Kletzky, I have been crying over the death of one Jewish child, and I didn’t shed a single tear over the death of dozens of Norwegian children?

With a chill, I realized that this is how people all over the world must have reacted every time we in Israel suffered a massive terror attack. While we were crying and burying our dead, they were shaking their heads, clicking their tongues, and going on to the next news item. What is wrong with them? What is wrong with me? What is wrong with us?

I realized that I was not devastated by Norway’s tragedy because I do not identify with the dozens of mothers who are burying their children this week. After all, what do I have in common with these blond-haired, blue-eyed women with Nordic features who are on the other end of the religious and political spectrum from me?

That’s when I remembered the letter to the Kletzkys from the woman in Qatar. How could she, a Muslim Arab, identify with a Jewish Hasidic woman in Brooklyn? She wrote: “As a mother of 2 boys, I know what a long, long journey it is for a mother to bring up her baby to be 9 years old.” She recounted the common experiences they shared: the pregnancy and birth, the sleepless nights, the ailments.... She stood in Itta Kletsky’s shoes, and she cried with her.

Related Article: Learning from Leiby

I, too, am a mother. Like Itta Kletsky. Like Carmen Ali. Like the scores of blond-haired Norwegian mothers who will never again embrace their murdered children. Learning from the example of my Muslim sister, I sat there and visualized all we have in common: the jubilation over the child’s first smile, the worry over his first fever, the anxiety over his first day at school. I sat there until I wept for the slain children of Norway.

In some ways, these parents are in a worse situation than Leiby Kletzky’s parents. The Kletzkys had a whole community focused on their personal loss. In Norway there are so many dead that each child gets no more than a photo and a short paragraph in the news. Thousands of mourners crowded into the Kletskys’ apartment every day of the seven-day shiva period. In Norway, thousands mourn in the center of Oslo, but how many beat a trail to each victim’s home? Judaism mandates a week of shiva, in which the parents are forbidden to work, bathe, or do anything other than grieve, while people visit them to fulfill the mitzvah of “comforting the mourners.” What did the Norwegian parents do the day after they buried their children? What framework do they have to ease them through the mourning process?

In their public statement, Leiby Kletzky’s parents addressed “all of God’s children around the world who held our dear Leiby in their thoughts and prayers. We pray that none of you should ever have to live through what we did. But if any tragedy is to ever befall any of you, God forbid, you should be blessed with a community and public as supportive as ours. We feel that through Leiby we’ve become family with you all.”

Last Friday, tragedy did befall scores of Norwegian parents, and few of them were “blessed with a community and public as supportive as ours.” Let us, the Jewish People, unite again in a message to these stricken parents: We are crying for your children—and for you.

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/ci/s/Norway_I_Cry_for_You.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Naturally the Progressive-Islamist Axis seeks to use the events in Oslo to silence those who would defend Western culture and Freedom from Islamo Fascism.   Here we see Robert Spencer defend himself from such attacks.
==================


*New York Times Convicts Spencer of Guilt for Norway Murders*

Posted By *Robert Spencer* On July 27, 2011 @ 12:45 am In *Daily
Mailer,FrontPage* | *22
Comments<http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/27/new-york-times-convicts-spencer-of-guilt-for-norway-murders-3/print/#comments_controls>
*

Finally, a word on the Times hit piece, in which I am a significant
presence, and yet neither Scott Shane nor anyone else at the Times bothered
to contact me for any comment whatsoever.

“Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.,” by Scott Shane
in the New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html>,
July 24 (thanks to all who sent this in). The first clue as to the bias of
Scott Shane comes in the title’s reference to “Anti-Muslim Thought,” as if I
am fighting against human beings, rather than against a radically intolerant
and repressive ideology. Seven years ago here at Jihad
Watch<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/dutch-mosque-girls-must-be-circumcised.html#c8475>I
had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said:

“I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim
world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in
Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal
testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.”

Is all that “anti-Muslim”?

My correspondent thought so. He responded: “So, you would like to see us
ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.”

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and
non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality
in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a
challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to
be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not “anti-Muslim”
to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world —
quite the contrary.

[...] His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to
defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who
operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers
who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western
culture.

Jihad Watch commenter Kinana of Khaybar analyzed these 64 citations
here<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/horowitz-the-character-assassination-of-robert-spencer.html#comment-807394>,
and concluded:

“Breivik himself has apparently ‘quoted’ Robert Spencer by pasting in large
unprocessed chunks of material from 3 different sources–the documentary, the
crusades piece, and the article on Muslim persecution of Christians.
Needless to say, Breivik never in his approximately 1500-page ‘compendium’
quotes Spencer as supporting his (Breivik’s) ‘revolutionary’ views, values,
methods, proposals, and objectives.”

The Times piece continues:

More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995
bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment
militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of
anti-Muslim [sic] bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate
over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.

17,000+ Islamic jihad terror attacks since
9/11<http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/>.
Two non-Muslim terrorists: Tim McVeigh and, sixteen years later, Anders
Breivik. And Scott Shane suggests that the “focus of counterterrorism
efforts” should be shifted from Islamic jihadists to “the subculture of
anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists.”

In the United States, critics have asserted that the intense spotlight on
the threat from Islamic militants has unfairly vilified Muslim Americans
while dangerously playing down the threat of attacks from other domestic
radicals. The author of a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report on
right-wing extremism withdrawn by the department after criticism from
conservatives repeated on Sunday his claim that the department had tilted
too heavily toward the threat from Islamic militants.The revelations about
Mr. Breivik’s American influences exploded on the blogs over the weekend,
putting Mr. Spencer and other self-described “counterjihad” activists on the
defensive, as their critics suggested that their portrayal of Islam as a
threat to the West indirectly fostered the crimes in Norway.

Yes, of course. There is no Islamic threat to the West. The Muslim
Brotherhood:

“must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious
over all other religions.”
— Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal
for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991

And as for “indirectly” fostering mass murder, it is noteworthy that none of
the quotes of me by this Norwegian psychopath contain any call to violence
whatsoever, and Scott Shane can’t come up with anything in that line,
either. It is tough to make a consistent defense of the freedom of speech,
the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people out to
be incitement and hate, and Shane and his Islamic supremacist allies can
most effectively do so by quoting me as little as possible.

Mr. Spencer wrote on his Web site, jihadwatch.org, that “the blame game” had
begun, “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global
jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything
we have ever advocated.” He did not mention Mr. Breivik’s voluminous
quotations from his writings….

I have now. But in any case, the psychopath also praised Obama and
plagiarized the Unabomber. Yet no one is holding the president or radical
environmentalists responsible for the murders.

Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it
would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who
helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad
writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the
infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings
are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”

Sageman says it would be unfair to blame me, and then he does it. This is
the same kind of rigorous and insightful analysis that this “expert”
displayed when he explained jihad activity as a result of
boredom<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/03/leading-expert-again-cites-jihadists-boredom.html>
.

“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

This kind of analysis can be turned every which way. If I am murdered after
all this demonization of me, will Shane or Sageman or the SPLC or Michael
Isikoff<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/spencer-responds-to-smear-charges-found-guilty-in-nbc-news-report.html>be
responsible?

[G M]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-5-biggest-lies-told-about-oslo-shooter-anders-breivik/?singlepage=true

The 5 Biggest Lies Told about Oslo Shooter Anders Breivik

The discussion about the Norway massacre has been corrupted with politicized falsehoods and wishful thinking.

July 27, 2011 - 10:31 am - by Phyllis Chesler





















5. We Can Blame Breivik’s Violence on Being Abandoned by His Father.
 
Many male children survive being abandoned by their fathers very well. Some do not. Norway’s Anders Breivik shares a startling similarity to Australia’s Julian Assange. The two men possess a paranoid worldview and the capacity to exact vengeance. They both have “problems with authority,” to put it mildly.
 
But there is something else they share. When both men were one-year-olds, their biological fathers left. In Assange’s case, he had a stepfather until he was eight years old, followed by a second stepfather. When he was eleven years old, Assange and his half-brother began living in hiding and on the run with their biological mother. This lasted for five years as part of a custody battle.
 
In Breivik’s case, his father, Jens Breivik, an elite Norwegian diplomat (!!!), left when he was one year old. He rarely saw Anders, and when Anders thereafter tried to meet with him, his biological father rebuffed him.
 
One really cannot diagnose from afar and yet some (not all) father-wounded sons, which is something I wrote about in my book About Men, scapegoat women because they are angry at the fathers who have abandoned them. Assange has been accused of being sexually violent towards women. Some father-wounded sons are close to their mothers (as Breivik clearly may be), but inside they are at war with themselves. They struggle with repressed homosexual desire which is really a desire to be close to a loving and protective father and to be a “man.” Some father-wounded sons may also super-identify with concepts of collective male strength, e.g., with Knights Templar, etc. precisely because they have no strong identification with their own fathers.
 


Breivik is overly concerned with “masculinity,” with what he views negatively as the feminist influence — even takeover — of Norway. He wants strong macho men to be the ones to fight off Muslim-on-infidel rapists and does not view women as capable of defending themselves. He views women as too peaceful and submissive to fight real wars. (I wish women were so peaceful). Further, he blames feminism for making men too weak to fight wars as well.
 
4. Breivik Is Crazy.
 
Men kill, men steal, men torture, men concoct evil plots — men run concentration camps — and, at the same time, seem perfectly “normal,” “ordinary.” They are logical, lucid, functional, and, in the case of certain Nazis, also love music, their families, their pets. Men — women too, but in different ways — who commit cruel and evil deeds are nevertheless members of the human race. Animals do not behave this way.
 
Breivik got up every day, washed, ate, got dressed, and “went to work.” For years, he worked as an equity trader, as the director of a software company, and as a farmer. His real “work” consisted of planning this massacre. He saved money. He read books and articles. He wrote a (partly plagiarized) manifesto that is rather well written.
 
Unlike the Unabomber, Breivik was not a loner. He got out. He socialized. True, he still lived at home with his mother…
 
Breivik knew and probably still knows right from wrong. He knew that he was making a political statement, a horrendously bloody political statement, one that in his view was meant to save Norway from destruction at the hands of barbarian invaders — an act that was perhaps meant to teach appeasement-minded Norwegian leaders that violence now awaits them on either side.
 
As a former forensic psychologist and as someone who has been consulted by lawyers over the years many times, in my expert opinion (one rendered from afar), Breivik is more than sane enough to stand trial. He is also a violent, evil, sociopathic man. Men who rape their children, men who beat their wives, rapists in general, tend to pass most mental health tests and are spookily indistinguishable from the rest of the population.
 


Breivik does not hear voices, he has not repeatedly attempted suicide, he is not unwashed, unshaven; he probably eats. Just today, his lawyer said that Breivik takes drugs to “stay strong, efficient, and awake.” If these drugs include amphetamines and steroids, they could certainly put him at a dangerous remove from caring about the consequences of his actions.
 
However, as a writer, an intellectual, a human rights activist, a feminist, as a human being — and as one of the many anti-jihadist writers whose work Breivik cites, I cannot fathom how someone can spend a single second, no less 90 minutes, calmly and coolly shooting unarmed teenagers down or blowing government officials and innocent civilians sky high. And this is precisely what Breivik did.
 


3. Breivik’s Zionism Is Fused with Fascism, Proving that for Today’s Neo-Nazis the Muslims Are “the new Jews.”
 
According to The Daily Beast, Breivik is a typical neo-Nazi who, rather strangely, paradoxically, is also a Zionist. By definition, neo-Nazis and other fascists are not Zionists. In The Daily Beast’s opinion, “Islamophobia” is what currently unites European fascists/neo-Nazis and their allegedly “Nazi” leaning Israeli counterparts. However, Israel is not a “Nazi” state and it does not have an “apartheid” wall; it is a security fence, built only after Muslim Palestinian terrorists launched many thousands of attacks against unarmed Israeli civilians.
 
I have written many articles and a book, The New Anti-Semitism, which explain that Zionism does not equal racism; rather, today, anti-Zionism equals racism. Zionism is the liberation movement of a persecuted and oppressed people who are currently being demonized for daring to exist and to defend themselves. Israel, however imperfect, is still the only democracy in the Middle East and remains America’s only stable ally in that region.
 
Of course, The Daily Beast found a Jewish author to pen this claptrap, someone who just happens to have written a book about right-wing Christianity. Such ideologues are the first to condemn Judaism and Christianity as misogynist — but give a real Hail Mary pass to Islam.
 
The Israeli Mossad is not behind Breivik’s dastardly attacks, nor were they behind 9/11. Ironically, the Norwegian teenagers were being indoctrinated into anti-Israel activism on their idyllic island. There are many photos which show them holding banners saying, “Boycott Israel,” “Break the Siege of Gaza,” and “Tear Down the Apartheid Wall.”
 
However, this is standard fare all over the world today, and the Mossad is not gunning people down over it.
 




2. Right-Wing Massacres Are the Same as Islamist Jihadic Massacres.
 
From the moment news of this horrendous tragedy was known, everyone briefly assumed that jihadists had attacked Norway. Some Islamist group even took credit for the massacre. However, soon enough, it became clear that an ethnic Norwegian was the killer. Immediately, the blogosphere got busy. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post was hounded as an “Islamophobe” for having been mistaken along with the rest of us.
 
On the one hand, we have the oft-trotted out Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber (who killed three people over a period of twenty years and whose manifesto Breivik partly copied); Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in Oklahoma;  Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 Muslims at prayer in the hotly disputed Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron; and now Breivik.
 
Kaczynski was not religious, nor was McVeigh and nor is Breivik.
 
Two high-profile school massacres (Columbine and Virginia Tech) were committed by bullied oddballs and by a raving schizophrenic. The 1989 Montreal massacre of 14 female engineering students had been undertaken by an angry, totally sane man of Algerian descent whose father abused him and battered his mother. He had failed the entrance exam, and his manhood was shamed. He was found with a “feminist” hit list in his possession.
 
And then we have Islamic or Islamist jihad which has launched more than ten thousand, probably at least fifteen thousand terrorist attacks against other Muslims, and against infidels (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists) — especially against innocent and unarmed Israeli civilians. According to my esteemed colleague Barry Rubin, “The number of such attacks against Muslims in the West or indeed in the world is perhaps one percent of that number.”
 
Also, historically, in the name of Islam, jihadists have colonized vast territories in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and India. They have persecuted, enslaved, exiled, or murdered the indigenous infidels who once lived there and either destroyed their holy sites or transformed them into grand and gracious mosques.
 
Nevertheless, Western political leaders, the media, and the professoriate have focused only on Western imperialism, racism, and historical slavery and have absolutely refused to focus on Muslim imperialism, racism, and historical and contemporary slavery.
 
Meanwhile, the steady penetration of Islamic gender and religious apartheid continues apace in the West, especially in Europe, including in Norway.
 
Comparing the four or five attacks launched by evil, paranoid, insane, or isolated individuals with the jihadists of 9/11, 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), 11/26 (Mumbai), the kidnapping of American embassy personnel in Khomeini’s Teheran or the jihadic attacks against American embassies abroad long before 9/11, plus the thousands of unsuccessful and hundreds of successful suicide terrorist attempts against Israeli civilians in the last decade — an assault which continues to this day — is illogical and unacceptable. We all stand in long lines at airports and remove our shoes. We are subjected to intense body searches. This is all due to the global threat of jihadic violence against the world’s unarmed civilians.
 
How quickly we forget.
 



1. The Anti-Jihad Bloggers and Intellectuals Are Responsible.
 
The Norwegian government’s refusal to deal with the reality of hostile, separatist, un-assimilated, and violent Muslim enclaves in its midst is what finally forced Breivik’s hand. The proof is that Breivik did not murder Muslims. His was a mainly Caucasian-on-Caucasian, infidel-on-infidel, Norwegian-on-Norwegian massacre. Breivik turned on what he viewed as a fifth column, the Norwegian elite. They had the power to insist that Muslim immigrants speak Norwegian and embrace European Enlightenment values. They refused to do so. His message to Norway’s “progressives” is chillingly clear. Their teenage children, already well indoctrinated, will not live to carry out what Breivik viewed as their parents’ failed multi-cultural policies.
 
Writers work with words; killers write in blood. Breivik could have read all our anti-jihadic work. Like the Dutchman, Geert Wilders, he could have run for public office or launched an educational campaign. True, he would have had to live with being demonized as a racist and criminally sued; ironically, Breivik’s violent approach has led to a similar outcome. Breivik could have made a film about the normalized violence against Muslim-European girls and women at the hands of their families or about the honor killing of Muslim-Norwegian women— but Breivik might have risked the Dutchman Theo van Gogh’s fate and been butchered by an Islamist. Breivik could have penned some fairly innocuous “Mohammed” cartoons, as the Swede Lars Vilks did — but he would have had to live in hiding and with round the clock security. Or, like Lars Langballe, a Danish parliamentarian, he could have spoken his truth and been prosecuted for “hate speech,” just as Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was in Austria.
 
There are other ways to “run with” the anti-jihadic expose of how Islamic gender and religious apartheid has penetrated Europe, why this is important, and what is at stake.

[bigdog]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/01/a_murderers_manifesto_and_me?page=0,0