ABB, terrorist extraordinaire?

After having followed the first couple of weeks of the trial of terrorist and mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik through the eyes of the Norwegian media the impression I’m left with is that Breivik is the epitome of evil and that his murderous actions in July last year are almost unparalleled in modern history when it comes to sheer horror and calculated evil. Some people in Norway even seem to think that Breivik’s malice is on par with that of Hitler and Stalin. In their defence it can be said that very few people will dispute that Breivik is an evil psychopath, but there are simply no grounds for claiming that Breivik is any more evil or any more horrible than any other individual who decide to actively hunt down and kill innocent people, either by blowing them up or by killing them in a hail of bullets. What the vast majority in Norway fail to grasp is that Anders Behring Breivik is a very normal and very archetypical terrorist, nothing more and nothing less. The only thing that distinguishes Breivik from other terrorist is:

The fact that he managed to kill so many people

The fact that he didn’t sacrifice his own life during the mission

The fact that he wasn’t killed during the shooting spree

The fact that he wasn’t killed on capture

The fact that he is now able to explain and justify his actions in great detail in a trial that is being followed closely all over the world

Breivik’s lack of remorse and the fact that he is able to describe his actions in a surprisingly lucid and chilling manner doesn’t make his actions any more horrible or evil. The brutal killing of innocent civilians is horrifying regardless whether it is premeditated or not. If Mohammad Atta or any of the other 9/11 hijackers by some miraculously circumstance had been captured alive they would have exhibited a similar fanaticism and a similar disregard for human life. Their hatred would’ve burned just as brightly as Breivik’s. The same could also be said for the London bombers and every other jihadist who think nothing of killing innocent people as a means to achieve a ‘holy’ goal.

This terrorist attack has also given the rest of the world a bird’s eye view of the official Norwegian consensus society in all its glory. And it is highly likely that people who have caught a glimpse of it are scratching their heads and wondering what the heck they have just seen, or rather what they haven’t seen. Legitimate questions have been raised about Breivik’s mental health since the attacks, whether he suffers from some form of psychosis or other psychiatric illness, but no one have so far found it necessary to questioned the mental health of all those thousands of individuals who seem incapable of exhibiting any outrage at all. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that a psychiatrist would express concern if the first reaction of the next of kin of a murder victim was to stress the importance of showing the rest of the world how much love they were capable of exhibiting or started to sing in public to prove to the murderer that he/she hadn’t managed to extinguish the flame inside their heart.

There’s no escaping it, this bizarre reaction does raise some rather eerie questions, such as are these individual suffering from some form of a psychosis or have they simply just been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the Norwegian consensus apparatus that they are incapable of displaying anything else than the preordained and sanctioned emotions authorized by the authorities? There is undeniably something very North Korea like over these public displays of ‘unity’ and ‘solidarity’ which are mainly staged for the benefit of the international media. The mantra from the official Norway has always been that ‘we are going to show the rest of the world ....”

Those in Norway who don’t feel the need to take part in these rather uncomfortable manifestations of uncanny awkwardness and who oppose the underlying message behind, which is pro-multiculturalism and pro-Islam have been told over and over again that they are desperately clinging onto the past and holding onto ideas that simply don’t exist anymore. But what they themselves fail to realize is that their displays are also a desperate attempt to cling onto ideals and norms that are no longer found in Norway. The organizers are desperately trying to convince themselves and the rest of the world that Norway is still the same society that it was in the 1960’s and 70’s when people could walk around freely without having to fear being robbed, being physically assaulted and when women could walk around freely without having to fear being dragged into dark alleyways and being raped by third world immigrants which unfortunately happens quite frequently in Norway today.   

There is something very desperate and distressing about these staged manifestations. They are creepy because they are  fake and dishonest and they paint a false picture of Norway and ordinary Norwegians. Their fantasy simply doesn’t correspond with reality. Norway is a much less safe society than the one that they are trying to project onto the world. There is something very disingenuous about it all. Why not just drop the facade and admit that Norway is no longer the innocent little naive country that it once was? Anders Behring Breivik didn’t just appear out of nowhere, nor was he the one that catapulted Norway into the new ‘dangerous’ real world. We were already there a long before he detonated his lethal bomb in Oslo and executed his vicious killing spree on Utoya, and no silly sing-along or drivel about turning the other cheek and showing the world how much love we carry inside us is going to change that fact. Norway was attacked by a terrorist and that’s it, nothing more, nothing less. Norwegians should accept it and learn to deal with it.

A crash course in Counterjihadism for the political Left in Norway

Also published at Gates of Vienna

The trial of the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is scheduled to start in Oslo early next week. In the lead-up to the trial there has been lots of talk from various left-wing public figures and left-wing organizations about the need to expose the anti-Islamic ideology which they erroneously claim influenced Anders Behring Breivik into carrying out his sick attacks.

They couldn’t be further from the truth, because the anti-Islamic ideology is opposed to everything that Anders Behring Breivik did on that horrible day. Anders Behring Breivik’s warped mind is much more in tune with those of radical Muslims and violent jihadists who don’t see anything wrong with killing innocent civilians in their struggle to achieve the global fascist regime that the Koran mandates. One of the most prominent tenets in the Counterjihad doctrine is that it under no circumstance condones terror as a means to achieve an end. As a matter of fact the Counterjihad community came about as a direct result of the violent and fascist behaviour of various Islamic radicals and Islamic regimes.

The insidious and highly dishonest assertion that the Counterjihad community is partially to blame for this attack is without any merit whatsoever. Most importantly, it’s a completely irrational claim. The anti-Islamic movement embraces traditional Western libertarian values which are part and parcel of its philosophy, values which Breivik through his evil deeds and his twisted manifesto has shown that he wholeheartedly abhors. The violence and utter rejection of basic democratic principles displayed by radical Muslims is the entire reason why a Counterjihad movement exists. If Islam had been a democratic religion, there would be no Counterjihad movement.

Those who identify with the movement realize that Islam constitutes a serious threat to our way of life, a conclusion that even the most avid leftists should be able to reach if they were more honest with themselves. The Counterjihad movement came about because it wants to protect the rights and liberties that we in the West take for granted. The movement utterly rejects the idea that a political ideology disguised as a religion should be allowed to use violence and intimidation to impose its world view on others.

Bearing this in mind, it’s rather puzzling that the Left in Norway find the ideology of the Counterjihad community so despicable and hateful, and one can of course only speculate why they are so vociferous in their criticism of it.

Perhaps it’s because Counterjihadists are staunch supporters of such ‘despicable’ things as freedom of religion and freedom of speech? Or is the fact that the Counterjihad movement believes in the rule of law, and that they reject religious and political persecution in any way shape or form?

Or is perhaps the fact that the Counterjihad movement rejects all forms of physical abuse against women and children, and completely opposes forced marriages and honour killings, which by the way are rife wherever Islam is in charge?

Or maybe it’s because the Counterjihad movement completely reject any acts of terror and the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians?

Or is it because Counterjihadists embrace the notion that everyone is born free and should be allowed to live their lives as they please within the boundaries of the law without government interference or having government-sanctioned ‘political opinions’ rammed down their throats?

It is hard to find any other reasons for this bizarre animosity from the Left, because this is the ideology behind the Counterjihad movement, which in reality upholds classical Western libertarian values, and as mentioned earlier in this essay, represents values that are diametrically at odds with those of Anders Behring Breivik.

Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the ideology behind the political Left in Norway to get a clearer picture of the situation.

The prevalent ideology of the Left in Norway is ‘democratic’ socialism, which of course is the misnomer of the century. This undemocratic philosophy is a slightly diluted form of standard classical socialism. It is important that people realize that it is an offshoot of mainstream communism, an evil ideology which is responsible for almost 200 million lives and unprecedented human-rights violations all over the globe. The communist ideology is a hardcore fascist system, a trait which it shares with Islam. It completely rejects the notion that humans are individuals who have certain inalienable rights that can’t be taken away from them. It is also important to realize that socialism was the main ideology behind the dictatorship in the Soviet Union and it was the ideology chosen by the fascists in Nazi Germany, admittedly in a slightly different form, but with the same fascist traits.

Yes, there are diametrical differences between the Counterjihad movement and the political Left in Norway, no one is denying that. Let’s touch upon some of those differences here.

The political Left in Norway are supporters of a strong and all-encompassing political regime, namely their own. They support the idea of outlawing political views that go against their ideology, including criminalising criticism of Islam, multiculturalism, feminism and alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality. They embrace the use of awareness campaigns that promote their own political agenda and mock those of their opponents. They embrace the idea of state financial support for the national media, which in an ideal society should be completely independent and shouldn’t have any ties whatsoever to the authorities. They also wholeheartedly support any measures that increase their stranglehold on society, and which they use to the fullest.

It is surreal to hear members of the AUF, who are hardcore leftists, criticizing Counterjihadists for having ‘ideologically’ contributed to the 22/7 attacks when they themselves over the last thirty years have unquestioningly given moral support, and recently — through their mother organization, the Norwegian Labour Party — given substantial financial aid to Palestinian terrorists groups such as Hamas, whose stated goal is to wipe the state of Israel off the map, and who actively encourage Muslims all over the world to kill Jews.

But then again maybe it isn’t that hard to comprehend, bearing in mind that the political Left in Norway are known all over the world for their overtly anti-Jewish sentiments.

It is strange to listen to people from the Left in Norway, many of whom are diehard anti-Semites, i.e. people who despise people for no other reason than their ethnicity, criticise individuals, in this case anti-Islamists, who speak out against a religion that rejects the notion of civil liberties, encourages the killing of Jews and Christians, and mandates the introduction of global fascism.

Maybe it’s more appropriate to expose the ideology behind the political Left in Norway instead and challenge the political direction that they have staked out for the people of Norway, especially since many Norwegians are deeply opposed to their political agenda.

Maybe the trial of the sick beast from Oslo is what is needed to shed some light on these matters and set the record straight. If that were to happen then at least one good thing will come about as a result of this deeply tragic event. The accusations from the Left shouldn’t be allowed to remain unchallenged, because they are incorrect and their rhetoric reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

Relax, when we do it, it’s ok

A new word has made its way into the public discourse in Norway, and that word is ‘ytringsansvar’, literally meaning ‘expression responsibility’. The English word that would most accurately describe it is probably decorum.  The idea behind this new word is that people have a responsibility to express themselves in a non-hateful and non-offensive manner. The failure to show enough ‘ytringsansvar’ or decorum has repercussions in that a moral responsibility for the consequences that ensue are placed upon the transgressors, regardless of whether incitement to violence has taken place or not.

The political left in Norway which introduced the word shortly after the terror attacks on 22/7 felt that ‘hateful’ rhetoric had contributed, at least on an ideological level, to the atrocities and therefore advocated that such speech should be toned down from then on, hence the introduction of the word ‘ytringsansvar’. No legal changes were proposed, but the left in Norway have actively encouraged people to restrain themselves whenever debating ‘sensitive’ issues since. In effect what the left are doing is encouraging Norwegians to engage in self censorship; or more correctly they are encouraging those who don’t share their views on multiculturalism, Islam and immigration to shut up.

In Norway certain political opinions have already been banned. Individuals who express views that run contrary to those that the left have deemed acceptable on matters such as immigration, religion or homosexuals risk being prosecuted for hate speech, which basically means that the left in Norway has managed to outlaw opinions that they find unpalatable. There is of course a word which accurately describes such behaviour and that word is fascism. The act of banning political opinions that one doesn’t agree with and to curtail someone’s right to express themselves freely can only be labelled as fascism. The truth is that the political left in Norway are guilty of employing fascist methods in order to silence individuals with opposing views and it is quite surprising that no one in the MSM is writing about it.

The idea that a political faction should be given the task of deciding what constitutes acceptable speech and what doesn’t is preposterous and it violates the most fundamental democratic principles. The right to express oneself freely is an inalienable right which should be protected and guaranteed by a nations constitution, and no politicians should have the authority to dilute or revoke such an intrinsic right. In the USA freedom of speech is enshrined in the American constitution and it cannot be revoked by elected representatives. This used to be the case for Norway too until the left decided to make unconstitutional amendments in order to bring the constitution more in line with their own political agenda. It is important that people realize that the so-called hate speech laws wasn’t introduced out of concern for immigrants, Muslims and homosexuals, they were introduced in order to stifle opposition to the policies of the left. It’s a lot harder to oppose something if doing so can result in a prison sentence.

A couple of months after the 22/7 terror attacks a member of the AUF who was on Utøya when Breivik went berserk wrote an op-ed in Dagbladet in which he urged the leadership of the various political parties to come together and agree on the parameters of ‘acceptable speech’. One can only assume that this person believed that his presence on the island that day gave him the right to restrict freedom of speech in Norway, which is an incredible arrogant attitude.  It is highly unlikely that he intended to outlaw opinions that praised multiculturalism and Islam, which he himself is a supporter of. It is much more likely that he intended to restrict opinions that he himself found unacceptable.

The massacre on Utøya was horrible and no one on the political right in Norway contests this fact. However it is very disturbing to observe how the left is scrupulously exploiting this tragedy in order to consolidate their power and to discredit their opponents. It is completely unacceptable that they use this tragedy to introduce more limitations on free speech. Tragedies like the one that took place on Utøya occur on an almost weekly basis in other countries, and there are absolutely no grounds for claiming that the massacre on Utøya was worse or somehow more morally reprehensible than that of other terrorist attacks. Spilt Norwegian blood is no worse than spilt Israeli or Iraqi blood and the political left in Norway should take that to heart and stop elevating this incident into an almost religious like event.

There should be very few limitations placed upon freedom of speech. The courts should only consider those cases that clearly incites to violence, defamation cases and copyright violations. Political speech concerning religious matters, ethnicity and alternative lifestyles don’t belong in a court of law unless they advocate violence. The courts and the authorities have no business censoring political views. Such restrictions may be part and parcel in a dictatorship, but they have no place in modern western democracies.