Wednesday, December 21, 2011

A new political system is needed

I’ve decided to write an essay about politicians and the immense power that this tiny minority hold over the rest of society. Politicians have always had a huge influence over what goes on in a society, per definition they are the elected representatives of the people, chosen to make decisions for the people so the position comes with power.  But in the last few decades their influence has increased dramatically. And this is particularly the case in Europe where politicians have completely hijacked all decision making processes and practically removed any opportunity for ordinary people to exert any real influence over important matters concerning their everyday lives. Today’s politicians have taken on the roll of the wealthy landowners of the past, dictating their will onto the populace. 
This is partly due to the rise of non-democratic supranational entities such as the EU and the UN where non-elected representatives are creating laws that are endorsed by the political leadership in the member state nations. These enormous autocratic powerhouses have become handy tools for the political leadership to restrict personal freedoms of the electorate and greatly diminish the influence of the average voter.  Many of these adopted laws run contrary to the various national laws, and in some cases they are in direct violation of the constitutions of the membership nations, but because accountability for politicians is a thing of the past there aren’t any serious repercussions for the members of the political elites. And the sad thing is that the average person in Europe seems to accept that this is the way it is supposed to be. There is no real indignation or will to protest to rectify this enormous abuse of power, and this lack of righteous anger is real discouraging. Ordinary people in Europe have over the years been so accustomed to this massive abuse of power by the political leadership that they have learnt to accept it.
The massive encroachment on individual rights in Europe hasn’t taken place over night, it has been a slow and gradual process which has been disguised as a democratic process, actively aided and abetted by an almost unified politicised media corp. The political leadership would never have managed to pull off this formidable task without the media’s unwavering support.  And it is because of this massive conditioning process that so few individuals in Europe today openly challenge the massive authority that these politicians are given, or more correctly that these politicians have managed to accrue over the years.  Democracy is supposed to be majority rule, not minority rule which unfortunately is the case for Europe today. And this minority rule has had a devastating effect for the continent. The European ruling elite have been able to thrust Europe into the grips of disaster where financial ruin and social unrest are highly likely scenarios.
But Europe hasn’t progressed down this path as a result of unfortunate circumstances; it is headed down this path because of a lack of fair and democratic political decision making. This scenario could have been averted if there had been a drastic reduction of power entrusted to the political elites and had the decision making processes been returned to the people where it rightfully belongs.
It is easy to shed light on the ills of the autocratic minority rule of Europe, but how can the continent be saved from this repressive political elite? Well if we accept that the current European political system is hostile to basic democratic principles then it stands to reason that the first step that has to be taken in order to obtain more democratic governance in Europe is to abolish the traditional political system. This is not as crazy as it sounds; in fact it’s a very sane idea. Because do we really need to be governed by politicians? Aren’t there other ways to organize a society which eliminates the need for traditional politicians’ altogether? Societies aren’t built by politicians, nor do these politicians develop the essential infrastructure and ensure that everything runs smoothly in society. Societies are kept running by ordinary people who go to work every day and work hard to make this happen, despite the enormous restrictions placed upon them by the political establishment. My argument is that the duties that fall under the auspices of the political establishment could be carried out by individuals with far less dictatorial powers provided society was willing to give it a go. In many cases the squabbling and political fighting undertaken by politicians only slow down progress and leads to wasteful spending.
Today European governments aren’t passing legislation and amending laws in order to improve society, but rather to increase their sway over society and the average voter has very limited opportunities to prevent this. That’s why it should be the duty of every voter to attempt to weaken the authority of these undemocratic power entities. But of course within the context of today’s political system this is an impossible task to achieve. The political plutocracy will not voluntarily give up their positions and their power. Therefore it’s futile in my opinion to discuss how radical changes can be implemented by working from within the current political system. The political system will only change if drastically societal changes occur.
But it is important to look ahead and try and come up with sound alternative ways of governing for the future. How can societies become more democratic and award more influence to the people? In my opinion this can only be accomplished by a drastic redistribution of power and an absolute rejection of the notion that a handful of people should have absolute control in a society. It is not democracy when a tiny minority have complete control over all decision making processes. When all power is in the hands of one individual it’s called dictatorship, but when the power is shared by a handful of people within the legal structures of a political party it’s somehow referred to as democracy.
For a system to be truly democratic there needs to be mechanisms in place that allow the people to dismiss the decision makers if they disobey the will of the people. Shouldn’t the average citizen be allowed to intervene and force the resignation of any elected representative during their elected term if there is a strong opposition to the way these representatives are carrying out their political duties? Why is it that a politicians or political party are allowed to remain in power for the full term when they blatantly violate their mandate, and why aren’t there appropriate measures in place for voters to dispose of these deceitful politicians?
Another valid point for the abolition of today’s political system is that it is an ineffective way of governing. In Europe a politician is not first and foremost interested in pragmatism and in implementing cost savings policies, but in amassing power. Bureaucracy and regulations are for the most part intended to condition the populace to even greater future infringements in matters concerning personal choice.
In my opinion the private sector is more adept and better equipped to effectively operate a society. The private sector can’t afford to waste time and engage in unnecessary actions that would result in loss of profit and decline in competitiveness. So why shouldn’t the political system emulate the ethos of the private sector? Why is that we allow societies to be governed ineffectively by politicians that wouldn’t be able to survive a week in the private sector? Why don’t we demand more pragmatism and realism in the way our societies are governed?
Instead of having inexperienced career politicians decide important societal matters wouldn’t it be more prudent to have a system in which individuals with relevant experience in their fields of expertise are elected to represent the people? Wouldn’t it make more sense to elect an engineer with relevant experience to plan and approve new essential road and infrastructure projects rather than a career politician with zero experience in this field?  It’s interesting to look at how politics could be organized in the future or at least look at how politics could be made more democratic. In my opinion the only way to achieve this is to get a more fair distribution of power.
Today the only real power voters have is through the ballot box at parliamentarian elections which generally occurs every four years. All the other decisions are made by the politicians and they are strictly off limits for ordinary people. In any other situation in life there would be an outcry of such meagre display of democratic principles. A system where all the decisions are made by a tiny minority can never be described as a true democracy. In order to prevent the abuse of power it is essential to distribute it to as many individuals as possible, and not entrust it all to a tiny minority. I believe that individuals entrusted with power will almost always at some stage attempt to abuse this power, and if there isn’t anyone powerful enough to stand up to them this abuse will be allowed to continue unpunished.
So would it be undemocratic to abolish the current political parties and take away the power from the politicians? Is the existence of politicians a necessity to ensure democracy? Surely if an alternative arrangement to parliamentarianism means more influence and power to the average citizen then it has to be considered a positive change and not negative one? So what would constitute an ideal alternative to today’s parliamentarian way of governing?
Well I believe that politicians or perhaps candidates is a more fitting word, should be elected on merit and be elected to undertake to tackle specific tasks. I would abolish the unaccountable four year rule that we have today. I believe that direct elections, in which voters elect their own candidates is the only true democratic election process. That means that only individual with relevant expertise in crime prevention should be allowed to apply to serve as minister of Justice. Only individuals with relevant experience should be allowed to serve as minister of Finance etc. I also believe that if they are elected they should have no say in other unrelated matters unlike today’s politicians who gets to meddle in everything.  The elected candidates should only focus on the task they been elected to undertake. I also believe that the candidates should be able to produce a detailed plan as to how they would go about achieving their tasks. I believe that they should be elected by the people through an election process; for a specific period of say 18 months. In my opinion it makes more sense to have individuals serve for a limited period of time as this would put more pressure on them to produce results.
Voters should also have the opportunity to dismiss those candidates who during their term fail to deliver on their promises just like any normal person runs the risk of being sacked if they aren’t up for the job. The argument that politicians who don’t deliver on their promises simply gets booted out at the next election is meaningless as they still get to govern for four more years before they’re eventually dismissed, something which of course is unheard of in the private sector. Nor do I believe that it is unreasonable to demand that politics be off limits for anyone who hasn’t been working in the private sector for a specific number of years and has managed to gain some real life experience. Nor do I believe that political parties/elected representatives should be engaging in trying to influence people to think and act in a certain way. They should invest all their efforts into ensuring that the mechanisms needed to successfully operate a society are present and running smoothly. A politician’s job is to represent his constituents, not to lecture his constituents or try to alter the way his constituents think and behave. The right to think and act independently without exterior governmental pressure is a basic human right. Governmental pressure in the form of awareness campaigns etc. is simply governmental abuse.  If an employer were to attempt to influence his employees to adopt certain views and political ideas and punish those who don’t obey it would be considered abuse of power.
Some American conservative political commentators thought that it was problematic that President Obama won in the last presidential election. They argued that there were almost as many people who didn’t vote for Obama as there were people who voted for him, yet those who didn’t vote for him are forced to endure his presidency. One alternative would be not to elect a president, but rather a dozen or so individuals to undertake specific assignments. It would be a more democratic election process for the voters, as it is highly unlikely that voters would agree with all the political views of a presidential candidate. It would be a lot easier to cast a vote on specific issues. An individual would then be able to vote on a Minister of Justice with strong anti-Islamic views, vote for a minister of Finance with pragmatic financial views and vote for a Minister of the armed forces who doesn’t intend to invest trillions of tax dollars on rebuilding third world hellholes. Maybe this would be a better alternative? At least it would give ordinary citizens a lot more power than they have today.
Even if parliamentarianism continues in the future one of the first things that should be introduced is shorter terms for the ruling parties. Instead of staying in power for four years a maximum period of 18 months should be the introduced. This would at least in theory ensure a more effective government and fewer broken election promises.  Politicians should also be subjected to an ability test before they’re allowed to take office.  After all it’s an important job which affects everybody, so why shouldn’t there be mechanisms in place that ensures that the candidates are in fact suited for the job? Ordinary workers have to sit through gruelling job interviews before they’re given jobs. Shouldn’t the same principle apply to politicians?

Monday, December 19, 2011

Maybe it’s time for a Norwegian spring?

How does one determine the strength of a democracy? Well a good way would be to measure the personal freedom enjoyed by its citizens. Another criterion is to gauge the accountability level of the elected representatives. If these indicators are modest the natural conclusion to be drawn is that so is the level of democracy. If one were to make a list of all the nations in the world and rank them accordingly, a country like North Korea would most likely end up at the bottom and the United States of America would most likely end up at the top.
So where would Norway end up on such a list? Unfortunately not among the top tier nations, at least not if it was an honest ranking. The myth that Norway is one of the most democratic countries in the world is incorrect. Norway’s low ranking would be the direct result of the authorities’ concerted effort to greatly limit the personal freedom of its citizens, a process which has picked up pace in the last decades. Just the mere fact that the authorities have the option to curtail the individual freedom of its citizens, and do so unchallenged by the courts, is a clear indicator that the country has a serious democratic problem.
There are several restrictions placed on Norwegian citizens’ personal freedoms ranging from their right to express themselves freely, the right to make personal choices without government interference and last but not least the severe repercussions for those who violates these ‘rules’.  To be publicly persecutes by the Norwegian state through the state sponsored media is a cruel fate. This political persecution is done with gloves off and with continuous blows below the belt.
Let’s take a closer look at freedom of speech.
Shouldn’t it be the most obvious and self evident rights of all? If this right is lacking does it really matter that the populace enjoy numerous other rights? A question that should be asked is whether a regime that deliberately curtails such a basic human right should be referred to as a democratic regime. Nations in the third world that ignore the right of its citizens to express themselves freely are referred to as undemocratic dictatorships, so why are regimes in the west given preferential treatment in this regard?
Why is it that whenever China arrests dissidents it is criticized for being undemocratic, but when western nations do the same with reference to so-called hate crime laws it is accepted as a legitimate democratic practice? When the leaders of the world’s worst dictatorship, North Korea, choose to ignore the wishes of the people it’s rightly referred to as a crime, but when western nations do the same it’s justified with being in the peoples best interest as was the case with the steamrolling through of the Lisbon treaty.
It’s a common misconception that a country has to employ brute force against its dissidents before it can be classified as a dictatorship. That’s not true; any nation that blatantly sets aside democratic principles to stifle political opposition is to a certain degree a dictatorship even though they don’t adopt the use of ‘third world style’ brute force to crack down on political opposition. Some ‘soft-touch’ dictatorships simply re-write the laws and then use those laws to silence its critics.
What is the democratic nature of a nation where an individual isn’t even awarded the presumption of innocence by the courts, where everything is geared to get a guilty verdict before the case has even begun?  This is the reality in Norway today in those cases dealing with alleged ‘hate crimes’, or to use a more correct term, alleged thought crimes.
When it comes to matters dealing with the political issue of multiculturalism, dissent is simply not tolerated in Norway.  Privately owned companies that don’t comply with the undemocratic hiring criteria prescribed by the state, but choose to hire staff solely based on skills and without giving consideration to skin colour and culture face hefty fines. So do home owners that refuse to rent out their properties to immigrants, and last but not least so do those who vent their frustration about non-western mass immigration in the presence of multiculturalists or immigrants themselves. This is how the socialist authorities in Norway deal with individuals who don’t follow their decree in matters dealing with multicultural affairs. Differing opinions in Norway on this subject is not tolerated and the punishment for opposition has been criminalized and the courts in Norway conspire with the authorities in silencing troublesome critics. In Norway the authorities are heavily involved in setting the standard of what is acceptable and what ii not and individuals who disagree with these standards are punished.
In Norway the authorities hand out NoK 6 billion in ‘media subsidies’ each year. These subsidies are given to media outlets that have almost identical political views as the Norwegian authorities. The main TV broadcaster NRK is owned and funded by the state and have by several conservative politicians in Norway been referred to as ARK - Arbeiderpartiets rikskringkasting (The labour Party’s broadcasting Channel) because of its political bias toward the Labour Party. This unfortunate sponsorship raises the question whether the media in Norway is truly independent, and the fact that the state condones the frequent media harassment of political dissidents makes this sponsorship of the media look even more suspect.
It’s accepted in most western nations today that for a media outlet to be truly independent it cannot be sponsored by the state. Such dependency will rightfully raise serious questions about its journalistic integrity and whether in fact it’s simply a mouthpiece of the state.
During the cold war the communist party in Soviet Union controlled the dissemination of information. The newspaper Pravda was controlled and sponsored by the Party. Independent distribution of news was nonexistent and Western powers called it by its proper name, but unfortunately the ideology that shaped the Soviet Union is still alive and kicking in Norway, admittedly not in the same strict form, but the urge to control and dictate is just as strong.
The Norwegian government has praised the Arab spring and encouraged Arab dictators to introduce democracy to the Arab world. Norway even played an active role in dethroning Colonel Khadafi in Libya by sending Norwegian fighter planes down to the region. Khadafi used many of the same methods that Norwegian authorities are using to cling on to power. Admittedly Khadafi went a lot further than Norwegian authorities, but his mentality towards democratic playing rules isn’t all that different to that of the Norwegian authorities. Maybe it’s time for a Norwegian Spring soon or will we have to face yet another dark Norwegian winter in which nothing changes?   

Saturday, December 10, 2011

In defence of Fjordman and Hans Rustad

In the aftermath of the Oslo attacks on July 22, 2011, there has been a concerted effort to silence individuals who are opposed to the new multicultural Norwegian society. Vile accusations and libellous epithets have been allowed to dominate the media headlines in the months following the attacks. The instigators behind this formidable intimidation campaign are members of the extreme left who are unscrupulously capitalizing on a terrorist attack which cost 77 lives. These individuals have absolutely no qualms about exploiting such an event as long as it benefits their cause, which is to quash anyone voicing their displeasure of the new multicultural society in Norway, by any means necessary. Their preferred method is to publicly crush those who dare question them in their quest to deconstruct Norwegian society and replace it with a hardcore multicultural socialist dystopia, so that others with similar views remain silent out of fear of receiving the same harsh treatment.

In one of the lowest exhibits of human behaviour ever to be witnessed in Norway, members of the extreme left have taken an active role in accusing conservative political commentators such as Fjordman and Hans Rustad of having influenced (brainwashed) Anders Behring Breivik into committing one of the worst atrocities in Norwegian history. The accusations are insidious because they are by nature very hard to verify or to reject, and they are equally hard to defend against as they are based on emotional dishonesty rather than logical reasoning. The sole argument made by these left-wing extremists is that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad through their legitimate critique of Norwegian authorities’ attitudes towards immigration and willingness to appease the Muslim community have created Breivik the terrorist. One is left with the impression that it’s a punishable offence these days in Norway to tell the truth, at least if you’re a conservative political commentator.

What really exemplifies the dishonesty of the extreme left more than anything else is its complete and utter disregard for the truth. Anyone who has read the articles of Fjordman and Mr. Rustad will attest that the two have never advocated violence or tried to justify in any way the use of terrorist methods. As a matter of fact they have both strongly condemned the use of terrorist methods adopted by Islamic terrorists, and the fact that they have both been so adamant in their opposition to such methods from day one clearly proves without a shadow of a doubt that they both vehemently condemn the actions of Breivik. But despite this obvious fact the accusations from the extreme left continue with unabated force, which clearly shows that there are other motivations behind these vile accusations than unearthing the truth.

So let’s take a step back and look at it from a more logical perspective. The fact of the matter is that these vile accusations by the extreme left have never been subjected to any proper scientific analysis to ascertain whether they carry any clout or not. The truth is that these accusations were first made by a handful of individuals on the left with a very clear anti-conservative agenda the minute it became clear that the perpetrator was a right-wing non-Muslim. The accusations have since been repeated incessantly and they have eventually been accepted as the truth. And the media in Norway have played a vital part in helping cement these claims. These accusations are also in stark contrast to the normal admonishing by the extreme left after Islamic terrorist attacks in which people are being cautioned not to stigmatise all Muslims as a result of the evil deeds of a fanatical minority, something which I’ve highlighted in previous essays.

So let’s put these accusations under the microscope and examine them a little more closely. One thing that the media in Norway deliberately have chosen not to point out is that none of the individuals who instigated these accusations have ever met Breivik. The media have also failed to point out that none of these instigators have had the opportunity to conduct a thorough psychiatric evaluation of Breivik, nor that they have the necessary expertise or credentials in making any diagnosis of the terrorist. But even so their assertions that Breivik was influenced by Fjordman and Mr. Rustad go unchallenged by the media. The fact of the matter is that the court-appointed psychiatrists who were given the task of examining Breivik and who eventually concluded that he was insane have refrained from making any such claims. If the psychiatrists who examined Breivik aren’t subscribing to these accusations then why do the media persist in printing them? The truth is that no one can be held accountable for the actions of a mentally deranged individual. A person who is insane is by definition incapable of making rational decisions, hence no one can be held accountable for his lack of such.

If these left wing agitators were sincere, and had a genuine desire to uncover Breivik’s true motivations for carrying out the atrocities, they would be better off studying his online manifesto, in which he describes in great detail the reasoning behind his actions. In the manifesto Breivik states that he has been compelled to act as a result of Western governments’ suicidal immigration and appeasement policies, which he believes will cause the end of Western Civilisation. No one in their right mind can claim that it was Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who opened up the European borders. That responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of various European politicians and bureaucrats. I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire manifesto, but I’m pretty confident that Breivik doesn’t mention that it was Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who urged him to do what he did.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad write almost entirely about things that they read about in the media. When Fjordman writes about a non-western rape epidemic in Oslo it’s because the media in Norway have brought it to his attention. Fjordman only responds to the media’s coverage of these events. And when Fjordman writes about street robberies and other acts of violence perpetrated by non-western immigrants it’s because the media in Norway have brought it to his attention. And when Fjordman writes about the undemocratic shenanigans of the Muslim community it’s because the media initially decided to shed some light on it. And last but not least when Fjordman writes about the very real possibility that Norwegians could end up as a minority in their own country it’s because the Norwegian media has presented documentation and statistics that support such a scenario.

Anyone who has read Fjordman’s and Mr. Rustad’s essays regarding Scandinavia will quickly discover that they base their writings on newspaper accounts from Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The media claim that the duo helped create Breivik, but a more accurate claim would be that the media heavily influenced the work of both Fjordman and Mr. Rustad, and all the other individuals who write about these issues for that matter. Why? Because they (Fjordman and Mr . Rustad) simply react to the news presented to them by the media. If the media chose not to write about immigrant crime, Muslim demographic trends and the countless of stories detailing the anti-democratic mindset of large portions of the Muslim community it’s highly unlikely that there would be bloggers covering these issues at all.

And are the Norwegian media really trying to convince us that they didn’t expect that people would get agitated and form a negative view of non-western immigrants when they the media keep writing on a daily basis about how non-western immigrants engage in the gang rape of Norwegian women, or describe in vivid detail how these immigrants commit violence against ethnic Norwegians? And did the media seriously expect that people wouldn’t get agitated when the media publish articles in which Muslims claim that they will eventually seize control in Norway and introduce Islamic Sharia laws?

If one were to follow the logic of the media, which claim that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad were somehow responsible for brainwashing Breivik into carrying out these atrocities by their writings, one would then also naturally have to deflect the majority of the responsibility back onto the media in Norway, because they were the ones who initially influenced Fjordman and Mr. Rustad. If we were to follow the logic of these leftwing agitators the only reasonable deduction would be that the media were the ones who initially created an ‘environment’ where ‘hatred’ towards non-western immigrants, and Muslims in particular, was allowed to flourish as a result of their thousands of articles ‘depicting’ these individuals in a ‘bad’ light over the last few decades. Or maybe we should just accept that the media through their articles regarding the matter of immigrant crime are only depicting the reality in multicultural Norway? And perhaps we should also accept that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad are only engaging in the act of commenting on this new reality?

Are the media in Norway seriously trying to convince us that they have no culpability in influencing Breivik to commit these crimes by publishing critical articles about non-western immigrants, but that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who have simply been linking to the newspaper articles published by the same media somehow are? That is logical fallacy, and it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. If they keep insisting on trying to pin the blame on Fjordman and Mr. Rustad then they have to stand up and accept equal responsibility, which of course they will never do.

In my opinion one of the reasons why the media in Norway is targeting Fjordman in particular is because they’re envious of his international success. Fjordman has gained considerable international recognition for his work. His articles have been read by millions of people around the globe, and that is something that the journalists in Norway who ridicule him will never be able to achieve. In fact most of them are third rate reporters incapable of producing high quality journalistic work. The majority are only capable of writing frivolous sensationalism, and they simply act as mouthpieces for the political establishment. They know it, and that’s why they keep attacking Fjordman. In their mind if they can’t enjoy the same success that Fjordman has enjoyed then he shouldn’t be able to enjoy it either. It was a big thorn in their side that ever since Fjordman started blogging in 2005, they were unable to uncover his true identity. If they had they would have been able to silence him a lot sooner by publicly slandering him an intimidating him to remain silent. When Fjordman finally revealed his identity the media finally got their opportunity, and they have been busy slandering him ever since. The final nail in the coffin would be for him to be convicted in a court of law for being an ‘accomplice’ of Breivik. Only then would they be able to rest.

Another point that I want to quickly touch upon is Breivik himself. It is of a more hypothetical nature, and I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but it is a thought that has crossed my mind, and that I haven’t heard anyone else discussing it. My hypothesis is this: what if Breivik is only pretending to be insane in order to avoid doing time in prison? It is common knowledge that the Norwegian prison system has a huge number of non-Western inmates. For someone like Breivik, who clearly despises non-Westerners, it would be a cruel punishment to have to live the rest of his life alongside such individuals. Would the possibility of being placed in a psychiatric ward where the majority of the patients are of Norwegian stock be a more tempting alternative for him? And would it with time be easier for Breivik to escape from a psychiatric unit than from a maximum security prison?

Would Breivik be capable of fooling the psychiatrists into believing that he is mentally unstable? I believe that he could. Breivik has shown that he is very capable of detailed planning and that he has the patience required for meticulous research. Who’s to say that he hasn’t planned for this scenario all along? I would imagine that anyone who has studied a textbook dealing with basic psychiatry would be able to recognise the various symptoms of mental illnesses. Once again, I don’t know if there is any basis for making such claims, but it’s an interesting theory nonetheless.

It’s also common knowledge at least in Norway that is, that Norwegian authorities in the past have silenced individuals who they have perceived to be enemies by having them diagnosed as mentally unstable and locking them up in psychiatric wards. For anyone who wants to learn more about it, I would suggest that they do some online research on the Arnold Juklerød case.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Is western civilization under threat?

What is the biggest threat to western civilization today? What are the biggest factors that could destabilize our societies and destroy our freedoms and way of life? I would suggest that the answer to that question are the unrestricted flow of immigrants/asylum seekers from the third world and the gradually more dominant position that radical Islam has managed to obtain in the west. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for religious freedom and I’m not claiming that every single immigrant/asylum seeker from the third world is destined to always be a welfare recipient and a drain on our resources, nor am I claiming that every single Muslim is prone to use violence against those who insult Islam. But no matter how many mitigating points people come up with when debating the issue, it’s still an undeniable fact that these two factors are slowly and steadily undermining the footings of our societies.

The unrestricted and unlimited flow of individuals from the third world into the first world is putting an enormous strain on our financial budgets and social institutions, as the newcomers unfortunately do rely more heavily upon the state to provide for them compared to the indigenous populations. And the worrying aspect is that current trends suggest that the number of third world immigrants are rising steadily compared to the indigenous population who’s numbers are dwindling due to low birth rates. As this disparity in numbers between the net contributors vs. net receivers’ increases in the receivers favour, the more difficult it’s going to be to maintain a system that looks after those who are unable or those who simply don’t wish to contribute to society. Eventually we’ll arrive at a point where it’s no longer feasible to maintain it. There simply won’t be enough resources to look after everybody and what’s going to happen then is anybody’s guess.

Islam constitutes an equally ominous threat to western civilization, not because it’s a foreign and unfamiliar religion, but because it is actively being used to intimidate those who speak out against it. In my opinion, any ideology which uses violence or the implicit threat of violence towards its opponents deserves to be labelled as undemocratic and should be treated as such. Followers of Islam have also unfortunately on several occasions used this tactic in the west and this has paved the way for a climate of fear, and reluctance among non Muslims to publicly criticize Islam.

It doesn’t really matter whether the dominant Muslim organizations in the west or its leaders portray themselves as peaceful religious practitioners, as long as a considerable portion of its followers and sympathizers are likely to intimidate and physically harass those who speak out against their religion. Any organization that do not attempt, or who are unwilling to speak out against the violent behaviour of its followers are in my opinion condoning their behaviour. In this context it would not be unfair to suggest that such organizations are simply using their followers to carry out their wishes, or their dirty work if you like, even though no instructions have been given.

In a lot of ways, Islam in the west today has many similarities with criminal MC clubs. The leadership will publicly distance itself from violence and renounce it, but its followers will punish and use violence against those who oppose them. They rule by fear and intimidation and that’s exactly how they would like things to remain. If we still want our societies to remain free and democratic in the future, the undemocratic ways of Islam in the west will have to be addressed. There’s simply no other way around it.

The progression of the European rebellion.

(I wrote this essay about a month before the Oslo attacks)
I’m now going to make a very dystopian prediction about the future of Europe. I do so with a heavy heart because I don’t want to see Europe, the place where I was born and raised cast into darkness and desperation. As with any prediction there are no guarantees and I would be the first one to admit that things might not necessarily progress according to my scenario, after all I’m not sitting in front of a crystal ball with a direct line of vision into the future. I will also admit that I would have found the scenario I’m about to present highly unlikely only ten years ago if someone had suggested it to me. But what I do have is trends and lessons from the past to help me make an educated guess about what lies ahead, and in the last decade things have deteriorated at such a rapid pace that the likelihood of what I’m about to present has not only started to look like a very real option, but it has started to look like the only option.  
My prediction is that Europe is beyond salvation. It no longer matters what steps the various nations in Europe take to avert a catastrophe. Europe can no longer avoid the pending cataclysm brought about as a result of unrestricted immigration from the third world, and in particularly the Muslim world. I believe that armed conflicts and social unrest in Europe are now an unavoidable reality and that the continent will yet again, like it has so many other times up through history, be thrust into the grips of violence and warfare. This plunge into the abyss is a direct consequence of failed political decisions made by the political establishment in Europe, whom have dictated the destruction of secure and stable societies in order to replace them with some illusive multicultural nirvana.
I do not predict such a scenario because I wish for it to happen, nor because I wish to see loss of human lives on a grand scale, I sincerely wish that things had looked more promising for Europe, but unfortunately they don’t. The wheels that will lead the continent down this dystopian path have already been set in motion and those wheels can no longer be slowed down. I’m not going to try and predict who will prevail in the end and what life will be like when peace finally returns, but limit myself to try and pinpoint what I believe are the main factors that have led us to this disastrous situation and what will eventually bring an end to normality in Europe.
My argument is that the uncontrolled flow of denizens from backward thinking cultures has passed the critical stage, and that it is now simply too late to try to rectify the damage that this demographic redistribution has caused. Nor does it matter if there is an immediate and absolute cessation of the uncontrolled movement of illegal individuals from the third world. There are simply too many individuals with different and opposing cultural backgrounds residing in Europe today and the tension this is causing will lead to conflicts. I don’t know when the first signs of violent cultural turmoil are going to appear, but I do know that they will.
To those who find this scenario unrealistic and too unbearable to fathom, I say take a look at the facts and ask yourselves what happens to societies where rapid and violent changes occur within a very short time. What transformations take place in societies where the native populations are replaced by immigrants with completely opposite views and values? What happens to societies when things are turned upside down? What happens when everything that used to be the norm suddenly becomes evil and immoral, and what happens when the political establishment starts to dictate to the people instead of listening to them? The answer to those questions is that people start to feel discontent and this discontent eventually manifests itself in a revolt of some kind. It’s human nature at its most basic level. People do not like to be pushed around and told what to do by a tyrannical minority.
Let’s take a look at it from another angle and substitute the pending European scenario with a slightly different one. Ask yourselves what would happen to a society if food started to become scarce? What if food became a precious commodity and there simply wasn’t enough to go around? What changes would take place in such a society? Would the inhabitants continue to feel solidarity with each other and try to share the limited resources as best as they could? In some societies that would probably be the case, at least in the short run. But it’s not unrealistic to assume that over time when hunger and fatigue started to set in for real that major changes would start to occur. Over time it’s highly likely that strict hierarchical structures based upon brute force would establish themselves and start wielding its power, and that the upper echelons would consist of a dominant and opportunistic minority dedicated to controlling the resources and use these in a manner that would further enhance their grip over the rest of the society. In other words a total breakdown of democratic principles.
Similar undemocratic societies can be found in prisons where the will to survive overrides any instilled moral values about egalitarianism and respect for others. It can also be found in any criminal organization where the show of force and intimidation not only becomes imperative but essential for the leadership to remain in power. It can also be found in many of the countries in the third world where the non-western immigrants settling in Europe originates from. And that piece of knowledge should help explains why so many of them act and behave the way they do. The reality is that in societies where law and order are absent it is those who’re willing to step on others and violate others rights that are the once who are most likely to prosper, and more importantly survive.
In Europe’s case however it’s not going to be a matter of dwindling food supplies that will send the continent into a downward spiral, but rather a gradual deterioration of personal safety and personal freedoms. It is almost certain that Europe in the future will start to resemble some of the more savage societies found in the third world. Even today we can see clear evidence that certain areas of the continent has started to move in such a direction. I don’t think anyone in their right mind can argue that Europe has become safer and more secure in the last couple of decades.  There has been an increase in areas where the ambiance of lawlessness has been allowed to take root and where even the police are reluctant to venture in. In that regard Europe has started to resemble the US of the past, where high crime rates where spiralling out of control in many of the inner city neighbourhoods.
In a bizarre twist of fate Europe has started to bear a resemblance to those exact neighbourhoods that the political establishment in Europe ridiculed their cousins in US for only a couple of decades ago. Another confirmation of the deterioration of societal standards in Europe in recent times can be witnessed through the increasing exodus of highly qualified native Europeans who seek greener pastures in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Many of these emigrants explain the reasons for relocating with rising crime levels and failed multiculturalism. A more compelling argument is hard to find.
If non-western immigration had been more modest and if it hadn’t been allowed to reach the current astronomical levels, and if there had been a strong political opposition with enough clout to deal properly with the immigrants and their steady stream of demands things might have panned out differently. But in Europe today there are no real alternatives to the present pro immigration policies of the left. As a matter of fact there is a massive unified political block supporting and actively encouraging the current demographic makeover. In today's supposedly democratic Europe anti immigration proponents get persecuted and political parties with anti-immigration inclinations get ridiculed and marginalised. People in Europe who do not share the political establishment’s enthusiasm for the multicultural dream are of no importance to the political elites. Their future prospects look very bleak indeed, and unfortunately they are not going to improve. And to make matters even worse the political establishment are getting more brazen about their intensions for the new Europe. They no longer hide the fact that they don’t care about the people anymore. The political establishment display their displeasure for the proletariat quite openly and for some within the elites this type of behaviour is the source of immense social status. But what they don’t seem to grasp is that this arrogant and highly undemocratic behaviour breeds hatred and discontent, and that it will eventually rise to the surface.
The changes that Europe has gone through in the last three to four decades have been too monumental for things to remain the way they are. Two conflicting and totally opposite cultures are facing each other, and the fact that one is extremely aggressive and assertive is a recipe for disaster. Today we see an escalating influx of immigrants into Europe from the Muslim world, and we are able to observe the aggressive behaviour of this culture and the inability, or perhaps the lack of willpower from the political establishment to deal with it in a concise and firm manner. If the political establishment in Europe had been capable of exhibiting at least a minuscule amount of honesty they would have openly acknowledged that a very undemocratic and violent ideology is present in every single European country today, and that this ideology wages a war of intimidation against those who don’t share its views.
There is of course also a second undemocratic ideology present, and it consists mainly of native Europeans, but in many ways it is just as dangerous as Islam. That ideology is socialism and it is represented by the far left. In ideological doctrine Islam and socialism are miles apart, but for some reason they seem to have joined forces and chosen a common enemy, and that enemy is the native populations of the west. Both groups display predatory behaviour in which they act in large groups pouncing on lone prey or smaller groups unable to defend themselves as a way to instil fear and submission. The target of the radical left is anyone with dissenting views and people who don’t endorse their radical political ideology, for the Muslims it is non-Muslims and those who don’t show enough deference and submission for their religion. This has created an atmosphere in Europe where people with different political and religious views no longer feel that they can express themselves freely and openly without running the risk of getting physically attacked, and as a consequence many people choose to remain silent because it is deemed the easiest option.
So how does the average person in Europe who is disillusioned with the way things are progressing deal with their frustration? A more legitimate question would be to ask how the human psyche deals with dramatic and traumatic changes over an extended period. How much trauma is sufficient to push a person over the edge, and when does it exhibit itself in the form of violence? It is logical to assume that a person who has been the target of unprovoked violence/harassment, has seen his family and friends get targeted by violent gangs would become severely affected by these experiences. And especially if these attacks continue for a long time and the law enforcement agencies are incapable of stopping them. How long can this continue before something starts to snap inside the victim and start manifesting itself in retaliatory violence, or at least the wish to inflict violence on his tormentors? And this desire is not simply limited to the victims. It’s also becomes a desire for those who are not personally affected, but who are forced to read about such attacks and witness the consequences of them. What happens when the realization that justice is nowhere to be found finally starts to sinks in? Isn’t it natural to assume that when people’s sense of justice get’s violated and the establishments’ response is simply to shrug their shoulders the road to direct action becomes shorter?
And what type of crimes are we talking about? In present day Europe one of the worst types of crimes occurring is the premeditated sexual assaults of young native women. These cowardly and disgusting acts are on the rise in every country and the perpetrators are for the overwhelming part non-westerners (Muslims). In several of these episodes there is even more than one perpetrator. In the western world the idea that several grown men would get together for the sole purpose of sexually assaulting young girls is so nauseating and disturbing that it’s almost beyond words. Every time these types of cases are reported in the media there is a massive display of hatred aimed at the rapists among ordinary people through the MSM, and not to mention on various internet forums. It’s fair to say that such cases have a profound effect on the psyche of the native populations and that as a consequence the general sentiment towards non-western immigrants (Muslims) takes a plunge. It is impossible in any society for these appalling types of crimes to go unpunished indefinitely. Over time faced with an increase in such horrific crimes certain individuals among the native people of Europe will resort to extrajudicial methods to achieve justice and as a means to vent their anger and frustration over a political system that on the whole is hostile towards them and shows an unwillingness to look after their best interests. The targets of these vengeance attacks might not necessarily be the actual perpetrators; they could also include individuals with the same ethnical backgrounds as the perpetrators, and elected politicians who have paved the way for these types of crimes.  
Individuals who commit rape and other forms of violence directed at women and children have a very low standing in the western world. Petty crimes can to a certain extent be tolerated, but with rape it’s different. These sexual assaults are not only mere rapes; they’re acts of war which has the intention of limiting the free movement of native European women. Muslim rapists are with their disgusting behaviour able to curtail one of the most basic liberties that we have, namely the right to move around freely. One would expect that the response from the MSM and the political establishment would be one of moral outrage, but this is not the case. They seem to be more concerned that native Europeans don’t stigmatize the ethnic and religious group that produce the vast majority of these rapists. This constant attempt at excusing the undesirable behaviour of non-western immigrants only fuels the hatred for the establishment and steer more people towards an anti-immigration stance. No political party that display such willingness to appease, and doesn’t do everything in its power to stop these types of crimes will enjoy the support of the people in the long run, and at one stage retaliatory attacks will start to occur.
But it’s not only rapes that are on the rise in Europe. Crimes in general are on the rise and the non-western immigrants are disproportionally represented in most of these cases. When considering the ineptitude of the law enforcement agencies to curb this crime and when realizing that it’s only going to get worse we soon understand that we have a very volatile situation at hand. When people no longer feel safe in their own houses and their own neighbourhoods, when their loved ones gets attacked and the state doesn’t seem to care people will eventually start to re-evaluate their moral codes and loyalties. In the past Europeans have been loyal to the state in return for protection and social services, but in the future when these services can no longer be provided by the state, this loyalty will be redirected towards family, friends and the local community. When people realize that the social contract between the state and the inhabitants has been broken, something that is starting to become more apparent, people will begin to look after their own interests. In an environment where the state is unable to enforce the law, people tend to make up their own rules. I’m not claiming that everybody will start to take the law in their own hands, but there will certainly not be a shortage of people who will choose to do so. And it only takes a dedicated minority to make a profound impact on a society. That is something that Islam has showed us in the west in recent decades.
So how are things going to progress in Europe? In the past the answer to the increase of non-western immigrants into society has been white flight. It has been the easiest choice. People have chosen to take the easy way out and relocate to safer areas where the majority of their neighbours come from similar cultural backgrounds, where crime levels are lower and they feel more at home. And as long as there are sufficient areas to escape to this is going to continue, provided everything else remains the same and no major events disrupts the uneasy atmosphere that exists at the moment. It’s easier to move away than to face the unpleasant and make a stand. This development has left us with what has been dubbed parallel societies, one society where the immigrants crowd together and live according to their values and traditions, and another one where the native populations live according to their values. But what will happen when these two societies eventually collide? What will happen when white flight is no longer an option? This scenario will become a reality in Europe within the next decade or two with current immigration and fertility trends. How are the native populations going to escape from unpleasant problems such as rising crime levels and a radical regression in societal standards? What will happen when there are no more places left to escape to, when one has to finally stand up and fight for ones values? Emigration will be a solution for some, but not for the vast majority who will have to remain behind and deal with the problems.  
Some political commentators feel that the people in Europe are so brainwashed and conditioned politically that there won’t be any armed conflicts. They seem to think that Europeans will somehow just lie down and surrender. I don’t think this is the case. In fact I think it’s a very naive and ignorant position to hold. The will to stand up and fight is not based on ethnicity, but rather on moral values and environmental factors. And moral values can change quickly in societies where the rule of law takes a backseat. Whenever people feel backed up against the wall the survival instinct tend to kick in. I believe that the only reason that law and order has prevailed in Europe for as long as it has under the current political system is that life for the great majority have been relatively pleasant. When life becomes harder so will the people. Even the people of Tibet started to show some resistance when they finally realized that the Chinese immigration wasn’t going to stop and that this immigration would lead to the extinction of their culture. When the people of Europe reach the same conclusions they will start to resist too. If the financial crisis continues this process will without a doubt speed up dramatically. I believe that radical change is more likely to take place when people’s notion of a secure existence starts to disappear and is replaced with uncertainty and despair. When violence can strike anyone at any time the truth tends to hit home and people start to adapt to the new situation. When people have no other place to run to they will eventually have to stand up and fight.
The problem with Europe is that up until recently people have clung to the idea that law and order will prevail, and that the problems pertaining to the new multicultural Europe will sort themselves out eventually. It’s not an uncommon reaction to exhibit when problems start to surface. People hope that the problems will go away. The majority in Europe haven’t dared to, or have simply been too brainwashed by the official propaganda to think about what will happen if the multicultural project fails, and a great number of those who have been able to foresee it have chosen not to act because they have understood the risks involved in sticking their necks out. Being linked with anti-immigration organizations and perhaps even being in the public eye as a rightwing sympathizer does have severe implications in Europe today. Anyone who chooses to do so could lose their job and as a consequence risk losing their home and these are serious consequences for the average person. They also risk being hounded and ridiculed by the media, being physically attacked by the far left and radical Muslims and ultimately risk being hauled in front of a judge for propagating hate speech, or face some other preposterous type of criminal charges. Most law abiding citizens choose not to do anything because they understand that the odds they’re up against are too high. And in the back of their minds there might even be some doubts as to whether they’re being too paranoid about it all. It is only when people start to feel that they have nothing left to lose that they will start to act, and that time is fast approaching for Europe’s part.
When the conflicts begin there are going to be many different factions represented. The political establishments will in my opinion continue to control the armed forces which will ensure the continuation of power. In my opinion they will also come down hard on anyone who they feel are a threat to their position. There will also be left against right, as well as groups defined by cultural backgrounds. When the two dominant cultures eventually do clash there will be violent attacks on immigrants committed by Europeans. There will also be attacks on members of the political establishment, one shouldn’t underestimate the displeasure many Europeans feel for the political establishment who have actively worked to facilitate the current situation.
And what will be the defining event that launches the unrest? What will tip people over the edge? I don’t think that there is going to be a specific event that will unleash the pending Ragnarok. The various terrorist attacks against the west in NYC, London, Bali and Madrid didn’t have that effect.  I believe that the steady accumulation of repressed rage caused by crimes, and in particular cases involving rape of young native girls committed by non-western immigrants and Islam’s ever increasing demands and calls for restrictions on our freedoms will cause this unrest. It will start on a small scale and then it will escalate. There are those who still cling to the hope that stricter immigration laws will stem the flow of immigrants and that this will lead to a type of assimilation and a more peaceful outcome, but I believe that it will only slow down the process, it will not avert it. The problems can’t be resolved through ordinary political processes and in my opinion they can’t be solved peacefully. The current political madness has simply been allowed to go on for too long.
The rate of non-western youngsters disassociating themselves from our way of life and liberal western values are rapidly accelerating and this is very concerning as percentagewise there are more juvenile immigrants than adult ones. And even if it was somehow possible to stage some type of mass intervention and bring people back on our side it would be an impossible task to achieve as the numbers of radicalised youths are too great and there simply wouldn’t be enough qualified people in the west to undertake such a formidable task. And for every soul saved twenty new ones would take its place. It would be like slaying a dragon only to discover that new heads keep popping up every time it is beheaded. Could Europe have assimilated these immigrants if Islam had been taken out of the equation? Perhaps if the number of new arrivals had been more modest and provided that they had shown a greater effort at fitting in and contributing. There are very few people in Europe that don’t tolerate immigrants solely based on skin colour. The main cause of their disapproval is related to culture and the unwillingness of the immigrants to assimilate and contribute to society. But sadly this is not the case in Europe today. Islam is most definitely part of the equation and that makes it an unattainable goal.
It’s understandable that an alien culture strives to assert itself when it encounters new ones. Every culture has in it a drive to project its values and norms on to others. That’s how cultures survive and thrive. Cultures who do not dare to assert themselves will eventually be absorbed by other more dominant ones. Islam has already created massive tensions in Europe and these tensions will eventually manifest themselves in a violent manner the stronger Islam becomes. Even if a complete moratorium on immigration and family reunification from the Muslim world were to be implemented today, the damage has already been done. The alienation and resentment it has caused has excluded any hopes of a peaceful outcome, and its continual aggressiveness and rapid growth will guarantee a violent response from members of the native populations. But the pending conflict will not only be limited to clashes between European and non-western immigrants, it will also involve clashes between groups on both sides on the political spectrum. Such ideological conflicts have occurred previously in Europe and they will occur again. After all Muslims are not the only group that is trying to destroy our societies; it is also a stated goal of the far left.
Conflicts could also be unleashed by the far left as a response to what it sees as a growth in rightwing popularity, or as a result of strict austerity measures like we’ve seen in Greece as of late. It is also highly likely that the Muslims themselves will start the unrest, either in the form of increased terrorists’ attacks or if welfare benefits ceases or are drastically reduced as a result of the financial crisis, and last but not least if stricter political measures are taken to control the Muslim community or to limit their numbers in Europe. In every country in Europe Muslims rely heavily upon welfare benefits, if these payments slow down or stop altogether a large portion of the Muslim community will find it very hard to survive. We could also see military coups take place in Europe at some stage in the future. Military personnel are for the most part conservative, and would find it easier to resort to violence if they deemed it necessary or political prudent. There could also be scenarios were powerful anti-immigration organizations hire mercenaries to carry out attacks on the immigrant communities/politicians, either as retaliatory attacks or with the aim of creating conflicts.
I do believe that the various national intelligence communities in Europe would be able to prevent some of these attacks, but I do also believe that it would be much harder to stop attacks from native Europeans than it would be to stop attacks from radical Islamists for the simple reason that there are far more Europeans than there are Muslims in Europe today. The intelligence community is also heavily involved in monitoring radical Muslim organizations and therefore it would be harder for Muslims to fly under the radar. Another thing worth keeping in mind is that radical Muslims have always been affiliated with specific mosques and specific Islamic organisations. Native Europeans wouldn’t have to be associated with any organisations or religious groups, and thus make it harder for the authorities to monitor and control them. Internet would also play an important role in intensifying and spreading the conflict. The copycat effect would ensure that similar attacks would occur in other parts of Europe. Native European on a whole also has far superior military training which would be advantageous, nor would they stand out when they move about or carry out surveillance missions. On the down side Muslims wouldn’t hesitate in using suicide bombers and resort to terrorist attacks, which would have devastating consequences.
Many believe that such scenarios will never happen in peaceful and tranquil Europe, but keep in mind that Europe lost more than 50 million people less than 70 years ago. Acts of intolerable cruelty was committed during WW2 on the continent by native soldiers. It just goes to show that whenever change occurs it occurs fast. The notion that Europeans are somehow incapable of carrying out atrocious deeds and randomly attacking people because of their religion and skin colour is naive. The fighting instinct is an ingrained trait in every one of us. If the circumstances dictate it this instinct will kick in, that is something history has taught us.
So let’s quickly sum up the factors that have to be present, either on their own or all of them together before serious unrest is going to occur. In my opinion they are;
It is going to occur in a semi-lawless society in which crime simply becomes too unbearable for the native populations in Europe to handle and they are forced to make a stand.
It is going to occur if the financial uncertainty continues and welfare services and market economies starts to collapse or show signs of collapsing. If native Europeans are no longer guaranteed financially safety unrest will eventually break out.
It is going to occur when the alien culture becomes stronger and in particular when the Muslims start calling more aggressively for the scaling back of traditionally western values.
It is going to occur if there is an increase in terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslim or an increase in violence perpetrated by the far-left.
It is going to occur when the immigrant population reaches a certain critical level, making it impossible for the native populations to escape to ethnically homogenous enclaves. When people are no longer able to run away from the multicultural nightmare, their only option is to face their problems or surrender.
When people finally reach the stage where they feel that they have nothing left to lose and when the state is no longer able to protect the native population ordinary people will have to take the law in their own hand if they want to achieve justice.
I did write an article about future possible scenarios for Europe a couple of years ago in which several bleak scenarios were discussed and the likelihood of these scenarios occurring. I’m convinced now that a violent scenario is the only option for Europe. People are aware of radical Islamists, but more and more are starting to realize that Islam itself is radical. The sad thing is that they are discovering it too late. Whenever conflicts have occurred in Europe in the past the enemy have for the overwhelming majority been external. Today it’s an internal enemy (the Muslims/left) and therefore the result will be bloodier and any type of conflict will be harder to resolve, external enemies are a lot easier to deal with. If the disagreements had been minor and not constituted such an immense threat to our way of life, and if the Muslims had been less adamant and aggressive in advocating their goals things could have been different, but they aren’t and therefore the downward trajectory can’t be stopped. And as a consequence Europe is racing towards the cliffs.
More and more people are starting to realize that Islam has declared war against our societies through the actions of civilian Muslims and the Muslim religious leadership. More people in Europe are also waking up to the fact that Muslim representatives are actively working on destroying our systems and way of life. More people are starting to realize that our political leaders are actively ignoring the tensions that this behaviour is causing and that the leadership is actively involved in repressing those who dare speak out about it, and more people are starting to realize that there is a very real threat that the native inhabitants of Europe are going to become a minority in Europe if things don’t change. This possibility of a pending genocide, which is very real scenario with the current immigration and fertility trends, has a very sobering effect on the psyche of the native population.
The source that has been most formidable in shedding light on these immense problems is in my opinion the Internet. The free flow of information and ideas on the internet is the antidote to the MSM and it has had a huge impact on the popular opinion on non-western immigration. People have finally started to get their information from alternative sources and are no longer forced to rely on skewed accounts from journalists with a poorly hidden agendas. The newspapers have also been forced to shed light on the problems as a result of the free and accurate information flow from various internet sites. And why not, there’s no point for the MSM to obfuscate the truth whenever immigrants are guilty of perpetrating crimes when hundreds of sites on the internet have accurate information about the ethnicity of the perpetrators. And of course the average person has eyes and ears and they are more than capable of observing what is going on around them. The MSM can’t cover up the truth indefinitely. The Internet has worked as a weapon because it’s free and unrestricted. It is beyond the control of the elites, at least up until this point.
Another thing worth keeping in mind is that if things change for the worse in northern Africa with the introduction of societies based upon Islamic Sharia this will have a rallying effect upon all those who value western civilization in Europe. It will also prove once and for all for those who are still in the dark about Islam that the religion is barbaric and undemocratic, and that it is manifesting itself in a manner that is very foreign to western values. The case that it would be right on Europe’s doorstep would make it even more imperative to impede Islam’s rise to power inside the birthplace of western civilization. Many people who previously prescribed to the multicultural ideology have made a complete U turn and are now strongly opposing it. More will follow. More Muslims are coming to Europe, that’s a bad thing. But on the other hand more Europeans are waking up to the threat that this poses, and that is definitely a good thing. Hopefully Europe will be able to rise up victoriously from the unrest that will surely come and once and for all and purge itself of the mad ideologies and venomous ideas that has brought it to the verge of collapse. The process will take time and it won’t be pretty. Many people will die before victory is secured, but hopefully they won’t have to die in vain.

The terrorist supporters of the Left

This is the second essay in a three-part series in which I take a look at left-wing media bias in Norway, the Norwegian Left’s fraternizing with militant organizations abroad, and undemocratic elements within the Muslim community in Norway.

In the first instalment, ‘Left-wing media bias in Norway’, I looked at the Left’s stranglehold on the MSM in Norway, and how this stranglehold manifested itself in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Oslo on July 22, 2011. I also showed how the MSM tried to implicate parts of the conservative community in Norway for having emotionally contributed to these attacks.

In this essay I will take a critical look at the political Left in Norway and show that numerous individuals and organizations on the Left side of the political scale sympathize with terrorist organizations. I will also give examples of the Left’s eagerness to turn a blind eye to forces which engage in anti-democratic behaviour inside Norway.

The terrorist attacks in Oslo on July 22, 2011, were the biggest assault on Norwegian society since WW2. Needless to say, they had a huge impact on the national psyche. The left-wing community in Norway immediately demanded that conservative forces in Norway, and the Progress Party in particular, re-evaluate their political views on immigration and multi-culture, and distance themselves from what the Left labelled Muslim-hatred, once it was established that the perpetrator was a Norwegian non-Muslim ethnic male.

The Left claimed that these groups had paved the way for the atrocity. This massive broadside attack on the conservative community in Norway was wholeheartedly supported by the MSM, and it even had a distinct effect on political opinion polls that were carried out in the aftermath of the attacks. One of the consequences of this massive smear campaign was a significant drop in the support for the Progress Party which saw its support plummet to a mere 12 percent. At the same time the support for the Labour Party soared to well over 40 percent. This of course has political implications, as 2011 is an election year in Norway, and the political campaigning has started.

One thing that wasn’t debated at all in the MSM after the attacks was the widespread support within various political organizations on the Left, including the AUF (Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking, Workers’ Youth League), for organizations which engage in terrorist activities. One is tempted to use a cliché to describe this total media silence on this issue in the days following the attacks and say that it was almost deafening. The subject was however raised by the media in Israel and it was raised on various conservative news sites in America, and in my personal opinion it was highly legitimate.

I can understand why Israelis who have had to endure terrorist attacks from their Arab neighbours for decades and who have lost significant numbers of their compatriots in this terror were eager to point out that the Norwegian Left have gone a very long way in condoning the behaviour of militant Palestinian terrorist organizations. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Maariv, on July 25, 2011, the Norwegian ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje attempted to draw distinctions between the terrorist attack in Norway and the numerous terrorist attacks that have plagued Israel. In the interview Mr Sevje says that it is easier to understand that militant Palestinians resort to terror because of Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Palestinian land. Mr Sevje also claimed that peace can only be achieved if the Israelis engage in direct talks with the terrorist organization Hamas:
Norway’s ambassador to Israel drew distinctions between the Oslo and Utoya massacres and Palestinian terrorism.

Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwegian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to “outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases.” Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, “are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions.”

“In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture,” Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian native who is openly anti-Islam and anti-immigration.

“We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel,” he said. “Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo.”

He added, “Can Israel and the Palestinians solve the problems without Hamas? I don’t think so.”

The views that the Norwegian ambassador expresses here are, to put it mildly, shocking and extremely disturbing. By drawing distinctions between Israeli terrorist victims and Norwegian terrorist victims he is indirectly legitimising the actions of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, which purposely targets civilians. Mr Sevje should also know that there are no such things as legitimate victims of terrorism, nor can there ever be such a thing. Victims of terrorism are by definition always innocent, and attacks that specifically target them can never be justified or excused. They has to be condemned in the strongest of terms. The ultimate consequences of Mr Sevje’s words is that anyone who is opposed to the current immigration policies of the Norwegian Government is somehow more justified, by using Mr Sevje’s own strange logic, in using terror against members of the Norwegian Government and its youth wing the AUF, because these two organizations have chosen to ‘forego’ Norwegian culture, a claim which of course is completely ludicrous.

The conservative community in Norway have been vigorously harassed in the MSM since the attacks for having ‘emotionally’ contributed to the Oslo attacks, despite the fact that they have never encouraged or condoned such measures. The conservative community have in fact strongly condemned it and never attempted to make any excuses or find any mitigating circumstances that could be construed as indirect support for the terrorist. But still they have been harangued for it in the MSM. Mr. Sevje on the other hand, who in this interview makes a distinction between Israeli and Norwegian terrorist victims are given the all clear by the Norwegian MSM, and the episode is allowed to pass ‘unnoticed’ in the Norwegian press.

Another thing that is disturbing in this interview is that Mr Sevje legitimises Hamas as a worthy partner for dialogue. He’s claiming that no peace can be achieved without Hamas at the negotiation table. Mr. Sevje ought to know that it’s completely unacceptable to enter into negotiations with terrorists. I wonder if Norwegian authorities would be willing to sit down and talk to Breivik’s accomplices, if such do exist, or whether they would be willing to accept land for peace in order to dissuade terrorists from future attacks on innocent Norwegian youths. I don’t think the authorities in Norway would even contemplate such a scenario. So why is Mr Sevje suggesting that the Israelis should have to do so?

Mr. Sevje’s response to Maariv does however give us an insight into the mentality of the Norwegian left-wing community. They believe that different rules should be applied to the state of Israel. They insist that Israel must acknowledge the moral right of Palestinian terrorists to attack Israel, because the Palestinian ‘struggle’ is somehow justified. In this case they believe that the end result justifies the means, which of course it doesn’t. But in the ambassador’s defence, he’s just conveying the official government line. In January 2011 it was revealed that the Norwegian foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, had been involved in talks with the leadership of Hamas, an organization that the EU, Israel and USA have classified as a terrorist organization. When Støre was confronted with this in an interview with Norwegian TV2, his first reaction was to try and deny it, but he was forced to admit that the talks had occurred after the interviewer presented indisputable evidence that such talks had taken place.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has admitted to Norway’s national commercial television channel TV2 that he’s had direct contact with the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas, even though Norway officially only has contact with Hamas at a bureaucratic level. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre claims his conversations with Hamas’ leader in 2007 came at the urging of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas leader Khaled Mishaal had confirmed to TV2 that he has had several phone conversations with Støre. Hamas has won voter support among the Palestinians, not least for its social welfare work among the poor, but is also an Islamic and paramilitary organization that has refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and took control of Gaza by force. The US, the EU and Israel consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.

It is hard to fathom how a Norwegian Politician could even think to engage in talks with an organization which deliberately targets Israeli civilians and that doesn’t acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. It’s also incomprehensible that a Norwegian politician could engage in talks with an organization that is actively propagating vile anti-Semitism and brainwashing young Palestinian children to hate Israel and loathe the Jews. In light of the terrorist attacks in Norway it’s also hard to understand how a Norwegian politician would so easily give legitimacy to a terrorist organization such as Hamas by engaging in a dialogue with its leaders.

Jonas Gahr Støre and the Norwegian political leadership are rightly horrified by the terrorist attacks in Norway, but they apparently had no qualms about approaching Breivik’s counterparts in the Middle East, a militant organization that has previously carried out horrific terrorist attacks inside Israel. How can the red-green Coalition Government in Norway even attempt to justify such a travesty? And why haven’t they joined the EU and US in classifying Hamas a terrorist organization? It’s absolutely disgusting and revolting. Israeli terrorist victims are just as innocent as Norwegian terrorist victims. The fact that Støre and Norwegian politicians would sink this low is a slap in the face of the families of all the Israeli terrorist victims that have died as a result of Hamas attacks, and it is by no means any less offensive than a foreign government wanting to engage in a dialogue with Breivik’s partners, if they exist.

But for those of us that have followed Norwegian politics for a while it doesn’t come as a big surprise. There is no question that large portions of the political Left in Norway have strong anti-Semitic views which are disguised as opposition to the policies of the state of Israel. According to Wikileaks documents even the US ambassador to Norway, Benson K. Whitney, shared this view. In a memo from 2009 he wrote:
Although the Government of Norway would deny it, there are clear signs that contacts with Hamas go beyond a tactical desire for dialogue to a level of sympathy for Hamas positions. The FM once told DCM for example that one could not expect Hamas to recognize Israel without knowing which borders Israel will have. While the Foreign Minister expresses some sympathy for the Hamas position only in unguarded moments other prominent Norwegians go further.

Another sign of the Norwegian left-wing authorities’ willingness to associate themselves with Hamas came in 2006, when they issued a visitor’s visa to the Hamas parliamentarian Yeahya al-Abadsa. This was done despite massive protest from both the US and Israel, which rightly pointed out that a terrorist organization such as Hamas shouldn’t be granted such a privilege. But the Norwegian red-green coalition Government chose to ignore this advice and issued the visa anyway. The Hamas representative had already been denied entry to the EU, but he was allowed to come to Norway. Mr Abadsa arrived on June 13, 2006, and had conversations with members of the Norwegian Foreign relations committee in the Norwegian Parliament. Prior to the visit several parliamentarian members from both the Labour Party and the Socialist Left had expressed a strong desire to meet with members from Hamas.
According to the leader of the Foreign Relations Committee, Olav Akselsen, Yeahya al-Abadsa seemed positive towards the Norwegian views. He indicated that Hamas is willing to look at those parts of the PLO Charter that dictates the destruction of the state of Israel. “He also told the committee that the Charter is no longer valid. Hamas’ point of view is that it is Hamas who are responsible for the situation in the Palestinian territories. Al-Abad also said that Hamas don’t accept the charter, and that they didn’t get elected on this issue,” says Akselsen.

Again it’s frightening to see how willingly the Left in Norway associate themselves with organizations that engage in terrorist activities. Notice also the casual reference made by Mr. Akselsen regarding the PLO charter that dictates the destruction of the state of Israel. Just the mention of this charter should sound some serious alarm bells with these politicians. It’s a declaration to commit genocide. Individuals such as Mr. Al-Abadsa should be shunned and certainly not be dignified with a visit to the Norwegian Parliament.

But then again this tendency to turn a blind eye to what these terrorists really stand for seems to be endemic within the extreme left community in Norway. Prominent members of this faction will always passionately criticize Israel for the slightest perceived human rights violation, but choose to keep their mouths shut when it comes to Palestinian terror, fervent anti-Semitic rhetoric and widespread use of terrorism. This willingness to turn a blind eye goes way beyond intellectual dishonesty and can only be called by its proper name, which is anti-Semitism.

One of the best examples of the vile extreme left-wing anti-Semitism came in 2006, when the best-selling Norwegian author Jostein Gaarder wrote an opinion piece called “God’s chosen people’ in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. In this op-ed he stated that the world community could no longer recognize the state of Israel’s right to exist. This was Mr Gaarder’s response to Israel’s justified invasion of Lebanon the same year.

Aftenposten, August 05, 2006:
…There’s no turning back. It’s time to learn a new lesson: We no longer recognize the State of Israel. We could not recognize the apartheid regime of South Africa, nor did we recognize the Afghani Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Serbs’ ethnic cleansing. We need to get used to the idea: The State of Israel, in its current form, is history.

We don’t believe in the notion of God’s Chosen People. We laugh at this people’s capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds. To act as God’s Chosen People is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

Limits to tolerance

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as a justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the god of flora, fauna and the galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favourite and given it silly, stone tablets, burning bushes and a license to kill.

We call baby killers “baby killers” and will never accept that people such as these have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We just say: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing and shame on every terrorist strike against civilians whether carried out by Hamas, the Hezbollah or the State of Israel!

Mr Gaarder doesn’t seem to be too concerned about terrorism directed at Israeli civilians. He only focuses on what he perceives to be Israeli aggression. Mr Gaarder also doesn’t mention that Israel was justified in invading Lebanon after numerous Hezbollah incursions on its northern borders and numerous rocket attacks. Nor is there any mention of the fact that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians. Nor does he mention that the leadership of Hamas, which won in a landslide election, wants to wipe Israel off the map. Like most of his left-wing extremists cohorts in Norway, he chooses to forget those ‘troublesome’ facts that don’t fit in with his skewed view of reality.

And, unfortunately, it is in this type of environment of one-sidedness and political propaganda that the future left-wing politicians of Norway have their ideas and opinions formed. And nowhere is it more prevalent than within the ranks of SU (the youth wing of the socialist Left) and the AUF (the youth wing of the Labour Party). Former leader of the Oslo branch of the AUF, Askil Pedersen, was thrilled that Hamas won the elections in 2006 and stated that:
Hamas has won the most democratic elections in Palestine’s history, and the election results should be recognized with a state visit. Pedersen believes he will get the necessary support for this proposal from Oslo AUF, because Ariel Sharon — who is equally controversial — has previously been invited to Norway.

It wasn’t a big surprise that the AUF leader would sing the praises of this terrorist organization and invite them on an official visit to Norway to congratulate them on their victory. It just follows the pattern of AUF’s vigorous anti-Israeli bias. In a press release from 2008, the AUF takes it one step further and gives full support to Hamas and other Palestinian ‘freedom fighters’.
The AUF supports the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation and the AUF will fight for an independent Palestinian state.

It can’t be made any clearer than that. Here the AUF goes on the record and publicly stated that they support the Palestinian’s ‘liberation struggle’ and the fight for a Palestinian homeland. The result of a Hamas victory is of course the annihilation of the state of Israel. Hamas and all the other militant Palestinian organization have stated time after time that their ultimate goal is to wipe Israel off the map. And apparently the AUF is willing to aid them in this ‘struggle’. But none of this gets any mention in the MSM in Norway. In fact, a few days after the Oslo attack when the Israeli media pointed out that the AUF supported terrorism against Israel the reaction from the MSM in Norway was profound outrage over such insensitive accusations.

Further down in the press release from 2008 we get a glimpse into how the AUF aims to help the Palestinians in their ‘struggle’ against the Israelis:
“The Norwegian Foreign Ministry has indicated its intention to promote trade cooperation between Norway and Israel. The AUF is opposed to this. First and foremost because it is two-faced and it is irresponsible to increase trade with a nation that so clearly violates human rights and international law. Israeli foreign trade enables the country to maintain the occupation and the AUF demands that the Norwegian government stop its plans. The AUF suggests that the government should start working on an international boycott campaign of Israel. For a country that is so heavily dependent on foreign trade and good relations with the rest of the world, a boycott could be the reaction that is necessary for political change to occur. We saw this with the Apartheid regime in South-Africa, and if the international community come together and join this initiative this could help bring down the Apartheid Wall in the West Bank. The AUF demands that: The Government stop the Foreign Ministry initiative to promote trade cooperation with Israel. That the Government should start working for an international boycott of Israel. That the Government sell its shares in the two French companies Alstom and Veolia immediately and raise the issue with Israeli authorities. That the Government stop all its investments in the Israel Electric Company.

Of course some members of the AUF are less vocal in their opposition to Israel, but the organization itself is what I would label highly anti-Semitic. Former AUF leader Gry Larsen was infamous for her hatred of Israel and she was actually declared an enemy of the state of Israel. In 2003 she was arrested along with another AUF member at the airport in Tel Aviv. She was denied the right to enter the country and eventually deported. It’s also worth pointing out that after leaving the AUF, Gry Larsen landed a job as a political advisor in the Norwegian foreign ministry working closely with Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre, up until she quit in 2009.
Gry Larsen was declared an enemy of Israel in 2003. Later that same year she was stopped at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv when she tried to visit the country. After a lengthy questioning process and baggage examination, she and another AUF member were refused entry into Israel on the grounds that she was a security risk. “I was treated like a terrorist and sent home,” Larsen later told the newspaper Dagbladet. The statement was later withdrawn by Israel.

The AUF has also been a vocal supporter of the Gaza flotilla, which aims to break the Israeli navy blockade of Gaza. The AUF supported the flotilla even though it is organized by the Turkish terrorist organization IHH. And they continued to support it even after several radical passengers onboard the ships of the first Gaza flotilla physically assaulted several Israeli soldiers when these soldiers legally boarded the ships off the coast of Gaza. This is clear evidence that the AUF are willingly to support direct assaults on the Israeli state. In fact two Norwegian parliamentarians, Aksel Hagen from the Socialist Left and Stine Renate Håheim from the Labour Party were in the Norwegian ‘contingent’ who were supposed to join the latest ‘Freedom Flotilla’ in 2011.
The AUF has taken the initiative to start a petition within the social democrat community in support of the Gaza-flotilla and to demand that Israel end the illegal blockade of Gaza. “The struggle for a free Palestine is part of the Norwegian social democratic soul,” says AUF leader Eskil Pedersen. Among the names on the petition are several members of parliament from the Labour Party, representatives from trade unions, including union leader Jan Davidsen, and several candidates running in local elections, including Labour’s mayoral candidate in Bergen and member of the central committee, Martha Mjøs. “We demand that the ships be allowed to leave Greek ports, and that they be allowed into Gaza. We condemn the Israeli blockade of Gaza which imprisons 1.5 million people, and we demand that the Norwegian Government start working on having the blockade lifted,” says Pedersen.

As I have mentioned previously in this essay, the AUF is a strong supporter of the international campaign to boycott Israeli products. On the day before the massacre on Utøya Island, AUF leader Eskil Pedersen went on record and stated that:
The AUF want a unilateral Norwegian economic embargo of Israel.

“The AUF wants a more aggressive Middle East policy and we demand that Norway recognize Palestine. Enough is enough. We now need to get the peace process into a new track,” said Pedersen. The foreign minister admitted that the situation is difficult, but believes that a boycott is the wrong to proceed.

“Boycotting means that we go from dialogue to monologue. It would then be difficult to open the door the day we wish to start talking with Israel again,” said Støre.

This advocacy for an Israeli boycott campaign is of course AUF’s way of aiding ‘the Palestinian freedom fighters’ in their attempt to get rid of the state of Israel, which would be the end result if these ‘freedom fighters’ ever were to achieve their goal. But the AUF isn’t the only left-wing political organization in Norway which actively supports the boycott of Israeli products and businesses. The Socialist Left, a party which is a member of the red-green coalition Government in Norway, supported the idea of a boycott campaign and received international media attention for it in 2006.
Norway’s prime minister and foreign minister were busy with damage control tasks late this week, after one of their government’s coalition parties called for a boycott of Israeli products. And just when Israel’s own prime minister was lying gravely ill. The Norwegian government has long supported Israel and has been active in years of attempts to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. That’s what Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg tried to stress, when downplaying the boycott call by the Socialist Left party (SV).

The Leader of the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, recently stated that Muslims in Norway are being treated like the Jews in post war Germany. A more truthful assertion would be that it is the extreme Norwegian Left that is acting like the Germans of the 1930’s and the recipient of their rage is Israel and the Jewish people. The hatred and the vitriolic propaganda emanating from these left-wing organizations is no better than the propaganda directed towards the Jews at that particular time. The political Left in Norway, however, don’t use the same derogatory words to describe the Jews, but they use the same poisonous rhetoric, wrapped in a poorly disguised ‘displeasure’ at Israeli policies. The Left in Norway should also consider the fact that the tactic of boycotting Jewish businesses and products was embraced by the Nazis, and any talk of such boycotts leaves a bad taste in the mouth with a lot of people.

But such arguments have no effect on the extreme radicals of the Socialist Left. In fact they’re more than willing to take it further. At a party convention earlier this year members suggested that the world community should intervene militarily if the Israeli military retaliated against Palestinians in Gaza. In this article from March 2011, we get to see how these rabid anti-Semites of the Socialist Left think and operate.
SV is open to the idea of using military force against Israel. In a proposal to the congress by a unanimous committee it is suggested that the international community could intervene militarily against Israel if the country decides to attack Gaza. The proposal that deals with Norway’s participation in the Libyan war is also open to military reactions against Israel. “The world’s credibility is undermined when actions aren’t taken against other states in the region which violate the rights of civilian populations. The world community must also respond to Israeli air attacks in the Gaza Strip,” according to the proposal.

What the members of this extreme socialist party want is for NATO troops, an organization by the way which the party is vehemently against, to carry out attacks on Israeli military personnel to protect militant Palestinian terrorists so that these can fire their missiles indiscriminately on Israeli civilian targets. The Socialist Left doesn’t even want to grant Israel the right to defend itself and its civilian population against Palestinian terrorism. This is blatant anti-Semitism, and again it shows how members of the political Left in Norway condone terror against Israeli civilians and are outraged whenever Israel retaliates.

Another factor that raises serious doubts about the Norwegian authorities’ view on terrorism and organizations that advocate such measures is its preferential treatment of well-known terrorists living in the country. The most famous example is of course Mullah Krekar, who has been residing in Norway for nearly twenty years, and who is constantly praising the use of terrorist attacks and is a passionate advocate of the introduction of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. Norwegian authorities have numerous times stated that they don’t intend to deport him, nor do they intend to place him under arrest. Mullah Krekar is a free man living on Norwegian welfare benefits, and according to some he is still running his vast terrorist network from the relative safe haven of Norway. If Norway had been a serious partner in the fight against international terrorism, and if Norwegian authorities had been truly opposed to all types of terrorist activities, Mullah Krekar would have been extradited to the US a long time ago enabling US intelligence agencies to interrogate him, something which they have requested numerous times, but which the Norwegian authorities have declined.

But Mullah Krekar isn’t the only foreign terrorist living the high life in Norway. Another famous terrorist living in the country is Souhaila Andrawes, who participated in the hijacking of Lufthansa flight 181 in 1977, which resulted in the killing of the German captain. According to passengers that were onboard the plane at the time, Mrs. Andrawes acted very aggressively towards the passengers and she physically assaulted several of them. But the Norwegian authorities took pity on her and gave her a residence permit. Mrs. Andrawes now lives in Oslo.

And she isn’t the only hijacker that Norway has granted political asylum to. Norway also granted asylum on humanitarian grounds to two Iranian nationals who hijacked a Russian Aeroflot plane in 1993 and forced it to land in Norway. Like Mrs Andrawes, these hijackers also acted in a very aggressive manner during the hijacking.

It has also been revealed that Norwegian authorities gave political asylum on humanitarian grounds to 33 Taliban fighters in 2009.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to the above-mentioned individuals, thousands of other criminals and potential terrorists are allowed to reside inside Norway’s borders and more are arriving every day. A question worth asking is: How many terrorists can be found among these so called ‘asylum seekers’, a hundred, or perhaps even a thousand?

Another question that raises serious doubts about the political Left’s belief in democratic principles is the violent Norwegian Marxist anarchist organization Blitz. This organization has since its inception in the early 1980’s extensively used violence and intimidation to curtail the freedom of its political opponents. And the truly shocking thing is that Blitz has since 1982 been allowed to stay in an old tenement building owned by the city of Oslo, despite the organization’s violent and undemocratic nature. Members of the Blitz movement were heavily involved in the physical assaults on members of anti-immigration organizations and for disrupting political meetings of the Progress Party in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The fact that the Norwegian authorities have chosen not to intervene and evict Blitz from their base in Oslo is clear evidence that the political left-wing establishment silently condones the Blitz’s behaviour, which may not be that hard to understand when we consider the political Left’s support for militant organizations abroad.

In the aftermath of the Oslo attacks, one Israeli political commentator suggested that Norwegian authorities’ ambiguous views on terrorism perhaps had an impact on Breivik’s decision to execute the attacks. I don’t personally subscribe to this assertion, but I believe that such a claim is just as valid as claims made by the Left that Breivik was heavily influenced by right-wing bloggers. I believe Breivik and only Breivik is to blame. There is a very distinct difference between ideas and actions.

As I mentioned previously in this essay, the left-wing community in Norway has made serious accusations against the conservative community in Norway in the aftermath of the attacks. The Left has also demanded that the conservative community re-evaluate their views in light of these attacks. I believe that it’s more appropriate to ask the Left to re-evaluate their views, and in particular their views and positions on terrorism, regardless of whether it is foreign or domestic, because neither should be supported.