Left-Wing Media Bias in Norway

I’ve decided to write this essay in order to try and shed some light on the media response in the wake of the terrorist attack in Oslo. I will compare this response to that following similar terrorist attacks carried out by radical Muslims, and will try to highlight the disparity in the way the media are reporting these incidents. Many individuals in the conservative community in Norway have claimed that they have been treated unfairly by the media in the aftermath of these attacks, and unfortunately they have a valid point.

I will also look at the way certain political parties and organisations in Norway, including AUF, view organisations that engage in terrorist activities. In addition I will be taking a closer look at the Muslim community in Norway, and give some examples that raise serious doubts about the MSM claim that this community strives to embrace Western values. I will provide examples that show that certain members of this community pose a serious threat to Norwegian society.

The terrorist attacks in Norway are unique in several ways:

• They are unique because they were carried out by an ethnic Norwegian male with right-wing views, and not a radical Muslim, which has been the case in almost every major terrorist attack in the last few decades.
• They were also unique because many of the victims at Utøya who were massacred by the crazed gunman were members of an organisation which has on several occasions expressed sympathy, to varying degrees, for terrorist organisations abroad, particularly the PLO and Hamas.
• The terrorist’s attacks are unique because of the unrestrained media response following the attacks. In the past, whenever radical Islamists have been behind such attacks, the media have attempted to shield Muslims and have discouraged people from blaming Islam. In fact, the MSM have never hinted that the Muslim community in Norway; or elsewhere for that matter ever have had any culpability in any Muslim terrorist attacks. The Media have gone out of their way to persuade the public that such comparisons are unfair and baseless. Later in this essay I will give examples that prove this.

In this incident, however, where the perpetrator is a non-Muslim with extremist right-wing views, the entire conservative community in Norway have been implicated by certain political commentators and the MSM. Conservative, anti-Islam blogs and individuals that have expressed critical views of Islam have been vilified and indirectly accused of ‘emotionally’ contributing to the attacks. The media’s main argument is that these groups have somehow inspired Anders Behring Breivik to resort to violence by means of fervent rhetoric against the Muslim community and the political establishment.

Just a few days after the attacks, Norwegian political commentator, Petter Nome wrote an open letter for the Spanish newspaper El Mundo in which he placed a significant part of the blame for the terrorist attacks on the Progress Party (FrP), whose only crime is that they have been highly critical of the Norwegian asylum and immigration policies, and voiced their concerns about the rapid growth of Islam in Norway (verbatim quote):

To You who Nourished the Killer

By Petter Nome, Oslo

The Norwegian Progressive Party is the second largest party in Norway, holding 41 out of 169 seats in the Parliament. Their leader, Ms Siv Jensen, claims she was shocked when Mr. Breivik turned out to be one of their former members. She certainly was, and her tears were falling. But did she ever carry one single brick to the bridge most of us are trying to build between people and cultures? She never did. Did she ever try to make electoral catches with her talk about “Islamisation” and “national” and “Christian” values? She did, almost every day.

Ms. Jensen is not a supporter of violence. Neither are most of her colleagues in populist and right wing parties in Europe. But they should not be left with their shock and swollen faces. They carry profound responsibility for actively creating a climate where hate and violence appear as options for their most impatient followers.

In this letter Petter Nome claims that the rhetoric used by the Progress Party, and in particular by its leader Siv Jensen, has somehow created an atmosphere in which Anders Behring Breivik felt justified in committing these atrocities. Mr Nome arrived at these conclusions only days after Breivik carried out the attacks, and without ever having met Breivik in person. Mr Nome justifies his accusations with the fact that Siv Jensen has used the terms ‘Islamisation’, ‘national’ and ‘Christian values’ in speeches and in interviews.

It’s not unreasonable to argue that most people would have a hard time understanding Mr Nome’s train of thought in this case. How can anyone construe the use of such terms as justification to go out and kill 77 innocent people?

Of course, Nome and his cohorts know deep down that the Progress Party has no blame in this tragedy. The massive blitz against the conservative community carried out by the Left is nothing but a massive smear campaign aimed at discrediting political parties and commentators on the right that have opposing views. It is designed to intimidate others from voicing similar opinions in the future. If Nome had been sincere in his criticism of the Progress Party, he would have had expressed similar criticism of the Muslim community in Norway whenever Islamic radicals carry out terrorist attacks. But whenever Islamic terrorists massacre innocent people, Mr Nome and his allies choose to remain silent, and the only statements they make are meant to deflect any suspicion away from the Muslim community.

In his eagerness to ‘crucify’ the Progress Party, Mr Nome also seems to have forgotten that Breivik didn’t target Muslims, but rather the Labour Party and its youth wing, the AUF. Mr Nome also seems to have forgotten that the Progress Party didn’t use the aforementioned terms to describe members of the AUF or the Labour Party, but they used them to describe the increasing power of radical Muslims, and the unwillingness among certain Muslims to integrate into Norwegian society.

When the news of Mr Nome’s infamous letter finally reached the Norwegian media, it was heavily criticised by several political commentators for its viciousness, and even the Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, criticised it in harsh words, labelling it a cheap attempt to score political points in the wake of the terrorist attack. Mr. Gahr Store also went on record saying that the only one who could be held accountable for the massacre was Breivik himself.

But Mr Nome wasn’t the only one viciously attacking the Progress Party. Several others joined him in the verbal Progress Party bashing. Professor of Medicine Per Fugelli wrote an equally vile opinion piece in Dagbladet on August 5, 2011:

For a medical practitioner, it is natural to think about prevention. When something terrible happens, we need to understand what’s causing it. By finding the causes, we can prevent it from happening again. We will never find any logic in Anders Behring Breivik’s actions. They belong to madness. But we can try to understand the raw material and the fuel for his delusions. He did not develop his madness in an empty room. For nine years he nourished his paranoia in a society where Islamophobia and hatred of Muslims have become commonplace. Step by step this country has created a negative stereotype of Muslims. They are not people with a religion. They are merely standardised clones of their religion. There is an underworld of racist garbage on the internet. But the vilification of Muslims also takes place in the public debate. The Progress Party has for years brought shame and suspicion upon Muslims.

Again we see the eagerness to equate political opposition to Islam and immigration as an encouragement to incite violence, which is of course completely ludicrous. In their letters both Mr Nome and Mr Fugelli go a long way towards blaming the Progress Party for these attacks, even though the Progress Party have never advocated violence, nor in any way shape or form tried to convey that this is somehow a legitimate way of dealing with political opponents. If a member of the Progress Party had expressed such opinions, he or she would have swiftly been suspended from the party.

In fact, in recent decades the only political groups in Norway that have advocated violence — and on several occasions resorted to violence — are the Left. This has been done in order to silence the Progress Party and individuals who don’t subscribe to the Left’s political agenda. The Progress Party and its supporters have on several occasions been physically assaulted and had their meetings disrupted by radical leftists groups. It should also be pointed out that the Left have consistently used terms and characterisations of the Progress Party that are a lot worse than anything the Progress Party have used to characterise immigrants and members of the Muslim community. Does that mean that the Left are responsible for the physical attacks that were carried out against the members of the Progress Party in the past?

The Progress Party is popularly referred to in Norway as a ‘Protest Party’, meaning that it constantly criticises the policies of the ruling political parties, including immigration policies. There are very few people in Norway today who will claim that the immigration and asylum policies of the Labour Party have been a success. On the contrary, most people believe that these policies have been a complete failure. This is what the Progress Party have been pointing out, and nothing else. To even hint that such legitimate criticism could possibly be viewed as encouragement to undertake terrorist activities is repulsive, and it shows how low some people on the left are willing to sink to advance their own political agenda.

Per Fugelli is well known in Norway for his dislike of the Progress Party. Over the years he has written several opinion pieces demonising the party. I doubt very much that his outpouring of rage is something that has come about as a result of this terrorist attack. The rage that he expresses in this opinion piece has been lying dormant for a long time, and my guess is that Mr. Fugelli finally eyed an opportunity to pour out his guts with impunity and try to inflict damage to the Progress Party at the same time. And it’s not the only attack from Mr Fugelli on the Progress Party since the attacks. In an interview with Dagsavisen on July 26, 2011, he had the following to say:

The perpetrator’s thoughts have not been formed in an empty room. They have been formed in an environment of stereotypical imaging of the enemy. This is something that the Progress Party must take a great deal of responsibility for. Carl I. Hagen must take responsibility for having talked about the great Caliphate, and for having talked about an alleged Muslim plan for world domination. Muslims have been portrayed as sinister, dangerous individuals who are after our daughters. Ulf Erik Knudsen, Parliamentarian member of the Progress Party created the Facebook page, “We who do not want to be chauffeured by a Muslim taxi driver.” The Conservative Party have cooperated with the progress Party to get into government. The Conservative Party must be strong and say that as long as Progress Party exhibit these brown, xenophobic attitudes the Conservative Party will not be in a coalition government with them, Fugelli says.

Mr Fugelli seems oblivious to the fact that it is not the Progress Party, but the Labour Party that have created such an atmosphere by failing to rectify an out of control immigration policy which has resulted in a dramatic rise in crime and increased distrust in politicians and political parties. In fact, the Progress party has on numerous occasions pleaded with the Labour Party to do something about the problem, but unfortunately to no avail.

Another political commentator who found it expedient to blame the Progress Party and anti-Islamic websites such as Document.no was Lars Gule. Now the funny thing with Lars Gule is that he was actually arrested in Lebanon in the seventies for being in the possession of explosives that were supposed to be used in a terrorist attack against the Israeli military. Here we have a former would-be terrorist criticising honest law abiding conservative journalists of being instrumental in creating ‘Breivik the terrorist’. I wonder if Mr Gule is capable of seeing the irony in all of this, but then again he probably isn’t.

On August 1, 2011, Gule had the following to say to VG.Nett:

“It is obvious that certain groups and individuals have contributed to Breivik’s warped view of the world, and these individuals need to do some serious soul searching; if not, others will have to help them with this task. Because they have participated in creating an extreme worldview that influenced this person to perform such an extreme act,” says Gule.

Gule has debated members of the extreme right on various online discussion forums and is now urging the society to confront these ideologies.

But the MSM haven’t focused their energy on solely attacking political opponents. They have also reiterated their staunch support for the Muslim community, which they have described as peaceful and democratic ever since the attacks in Oslo took place. The MSM has also invested a lot of energy in ridiculing people who believe that Islam poses a threat to Norwegian society both culturally and demographically. Chairman of the Nobel Committee and former Labour Politician Thorbjørn Jagland said in an interview with the British newspaper The Observer on August 1, 2011 that:

European leaders should be careful when discussing immigration to prevent fuelling right-wing extremism. Leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Thorbjørn Jagland urges European leaders in an interview with the British newspaper The Observer to refrain from using right-wing arguments when debating Multiculturalism and immigration.

Jagland also urges European leaders to change their terminology and not talk about terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon.

“We need to stop using the term Islamic terrorism and instead use the term terrorism,” says Jagland.

Mr Jagland clearly feels that Islamic terrorism should be referred to as ‘terrorism’ and not ‘Islamic terrorism’, but on the other hand he has no qualms about warning European leaders not to use ‘extreme right-wing’ rhetoric. His views are in line with that of other dishonest politicians on the left who are more than willing to shamelessly label the latest attacks in Norway as ‘extreme right-wing terrorism’ and ‘extreme Christian terrorism’.

And of course the MSM plays an important role in this massive smear campaign. They are very eager to provide room for proponents of the multicultural ideology. These proponents are given free rein to spread their biased opinions and to attack members from the other side of the political spectrum. It is a concerted and vicious effort from the Norwegian MSM, which would never give individuals critical of Islam the same opportunities to express their views whenever Muslim militants carry out terrorist attacks. There are countless other examples of this extreme left-wing bias in the media, but for brevity’s sake I’ve omitted them from this essay.

Now that we’ve focused on the way the Norwegian MSM reacted to the Oslo attacks, let’s spend some time investigating the way the same media have reacted to similar Islamic terrorist attacks in the past. It will soon become clear that different rules apply whenever Islam is involved in such attacks. Gone is the willingness to challenge and question the doctrines behind the religion which are in fact actively encouraging its practitioners to attack non-believers, and which of course is the sole source in which the Islamic terrorists find justification for their evil actions.

Wouldn’t it perhaps be more appropriate for the MSM to actually discuss and shed light on those passages in the Koran and the verses in the hadith that actively encourage Muslims to fight the unbelievers? And wouldn’t it be appropriate to challenge the religious leadership that either encourages their practitioners to commit such acts or gives ambiguous responses to the same MSM whenever they are faced with questions regarding Islam and terrorism and the unwillingness of Islam to adopt Western values?

Another thing we’ll see in the MSM reporting of previous terrorist attacks is that the MSM don’t show the same respect to the victims of these terrorist attacks as they did in this latest incident in Oslo.

Let’s go back ten years to the event that once and for all put Islamic terror and jihad on the map, namely the 9/11 attacks in New York City. Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes that fatal day and flew two of them into the world trade centre. They attempted to crash a third plane into the White House and crashed a fourth plane into the Pentagon killing nearly 3000 individuals in total on that terrible September day. The events sent shock waves throughout the Western world and led to the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The response from the Western world was an enormous outpouring of sympathy for the US, the victims, and their families. This was also the case in Norway for the most part, but the MSM also gave voice to individuals who were less enthusiastic in their sympathy for the victims, and these individuals expressed their views in the media in the weeks following the attacks. The MSM also went into autopilot mode following the attacks and stressed that Islam and Muslims were in no way responsible for this atrocity, unlike what the media did last month after the Oslo attacks, when much of the blame was placed on the shoulders of conservative bloggers and the Progress Party.

On September 30, 2001, barely two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, radical leftist surgeons Hans Husum and Mads Gilbert were interviewed in Dagbladet:

“I am a doctor and I could never fly a plane into the World Trade Centre, but I defend the moral right of the people you call terrorists to attack the United States, as a legitimate response to 25 years of wars of aggression, mines, starvation and embargoes,” says Hans Husum, surgeon at the University Hospital of Tromsø.

“The attack on New York was not surprising, in light of the policies of the West in recent decades. I am outraged by the terrorist attack, but I’m just as upset about the suffering the U.S. has created. It is in this context, 5,000 dead people have to be viewed. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed also have a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis,” says physician and professor Mads Gilbert.

“Do you support a terrorist attack on the U.S.?”

“Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within that context I have mentioned,” says Gilbert.

Dagbladet apparently had no problems printing an interview in which the victims were being portrayed as legitimate targets. Nor did Dagbladet have any qualms about letting two medical surgeons with extreme leftist views defend the terrorist attack and trivialise it. This is the complete opposite of what happened in the wake of the Oslo attacks when Dagbladet and the rest of the MSM initiated a witch hunt and actively named and shamed anyone who they suspected may have expressed opinions that could, in a very extreme sense, possibly be construed as potential indirect support for this attack.

But this wasn’t the only disgusting article about the 9/11 attacks. Parliamentarian politician Olav Gunnar Ballo from the SV (Socialist Left) made similar comments about the victims and the US decision to invade Afghanistan and go after the Taliban after September 11. On October 14, 2001, Ballo told Dagbladet:

These Satan’s murderers

The U.S. is a terrorist nation. No other country has caused more suffering in the world since WW2 according to Parliamentarian member of the Socialist Left (SV), Olav Gunnar Ballo.

“The United States has for decades through its foreign policy been involved in acts of terrorism and serious crimes against humanity. This is well documented,” he says.

“State sanctioned terrorism also kills people, and in this regard the U.S. has a lot to answer for. I can’t understand what we have to gain by wagging our tails for such countries. But this is exactly what our politicians are doing. The lack of critical thinking is frightening. To raise questions is not the same as supporting Osama Bin Laden,” says Ballo.

It’s pretty horrific to call someone seeking justice for the death of nearly 3000 innocent victims as ‘Satan’s murderers’. And the scary part is that people like Ballo, Gilbert and Husum who were guilty of indirectly supporting the terrorists and denigrating the victims of this atrocity were hardly even challenged by the media. The MSM were happy to reprint their views without further ado. If someone had made similar comments about the Oslo attacks the media would have ripped them to shreds and it would quite possibly have resulted in arrests. As a matter of fact, a local politician from Demokraterne was brought in for questioning by the police for having expressed the desire to kill parliamentarian politicians during a private conversation that was secretly taped and leaked to the media in the aftermath of the Oslo attacks.

But it comments that could be construed as support for the terrorists weren’t the only things found in the Norwegian MSM in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Political commentators practically lined up to urge people not to generalise and blame the Muslim community, even though the terrorists used the Koran as a justification to kill all those innocent victims, and even though numerous mosques and Islamic religious leaders praised the attacks.

In an article in Dagbladet from September 24, 2001, Bjørn Engesland and Gunnar M. Karlsen, from the Norwegian Helsingfors committee had this to say about the ‘religion of peace’:

The battle against terrorism must not legitimise extensive repression and abuse of own populations. Such suppression only leads to increased recruitment of terrorist groups, and targets innocent civilians in direct violation of universal human rights. It is also important to refrain from engaging in witch-hunts against Muslims and individuals of Arab descent. It is the responsibility of the government in the U.S. and in other countries — to ensure the personal safety for all citizens. Many have pointed out that the root causes of the growth in extreme terrorist groups simply can’t be ascribed to the prevalence of extreme religious ideologies. Poverty, unfair global power structures and oppressive regimes helps to create a breeding ground for extremism.

In this article the authors urge the media not to engage in a ‘witch hunt’. The message that they’re trying to convey is that not all Muslims are terrorists and that a religion shouldn’t be judged solely on the actions of a tiny minority. Dagbladet was eager to get this message across after this incident where Muslim terrorists were involved, but they certainly didn’t heed this advice after the Oslo attacks which clearly show the bias displayed by the media when it comes to Islam and Muslims.

Another article from Finn Sjue, head lecturer in Journalism at the College of Oslo, was printed on October 25, 2001, and it had a similar message. And again Dagbladet was more than willing to comply:

Police surveillance is about to lose it ethical footing in its dealings with Muslims and various ethnic minorities. At the moment there is a silent harassment of Muslims who are suspected of having ties with Osama bin Laden and his organisation

In the last couple of weeks, many Muslims have been brought in for questioning by the police all over the country.

The conversations are at times reminiscent of interrogation. “You are a fundamentalist and shouldn’t expect anything else.” Or: “You are related to X and Y so therefore you must expect to answer our questions.”

These interviews do not only affect those who are brought in for questioning. The ripple effects are significant. For each person who is being interrogated, a whole family, relatives and friends are being intimidated. Some even refrain from having direct contact with the “accused”. This means that hundreds — perhaps even more — in the minority community feel embarrassed and harassed.

People who have been questioned can have problems in their relationships with their employers because more stringent vetting processes are now being employed on ‘these people’ before they are hired.

An indirect consequence may be that entire minority groups are being stigmatised. They receive a stamp on their forehead.

And in another article from the same newspaper from September 22, 2001 the virulent attacks continued:

Only one representative In the U.S. Congress voted against all the powers which the President requested to prepare the country for battles both inside and outside its borders. Monitoring, eavesdropping and surveillance will be allowed on a large scale.

This is how a mood based on ignorance is whipped up. People are generalising about Islam like never before. People who can barely spell the name of the religion know precisely what its ethical core looks like. They can’t tell Sikhs and Arabs apart, but scapegoats have already been designated and killed. President Bush obviously saw the dangers this week when he visited a mosque to show that it is not Islam the US is at war with.

As I mentioned previously in this essay, there is a distinct pattern in the way the media are reporting Islamic terrorist attacks. The media have maintained this mantra ever since 9/11 and used it after every single major Islamic terrorist attack since. After the Madrid attacks which occurred on March 11, 2004, in which Islamic terrorists blew up several passenger trains and killed over 190 people, the Norwegian MSM continued to exonerate Islam and its practitioners. Even though the terrorist were devout Muslims and justified their actions with passages from the Koran.

This obvious bias shown by the MSM is mind-boggling. Even in those cases where the terrorists are clearly influenced by certain religious teachings, the MSM refuses to pass any blame onto the religion that made the attacks possible in the first place. The media’s behaviour in these cases is akin to exonerating any assumed accomplices of Breivik that had actively encouraged and helped him to commit his crimes of any guilt whatsoever and to ridicule those who dare point out the illogic of this. And this is exactly what the majority of the MSM in Norway are doing at the moment.

Let’s have a look at some of the excuses that were published in the Norwegian media in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings.

On March 22, 2004, Christopher Gambert from the Centre Against Racial Discrimination urged people not to question the teachings of Islam or to engage in ‘Islamophobia’:

Since September 11 many innocent people, even here in Norway, have been subjected to grossly unfair treatment and increased suspicion because of their religion, skin colour and origin. At the same time the government’s violations of privacy and international human rights laws have moved at a rapid pace. In the aftermath of the Madrid attacks, there have been plenty of new proposals for increased surveillance and control of Muslims and other ‘suspicious’ communities.

Though the new ‘terror laws’ represent a loss of basic rights for everyone in a society, it is still the minority population who are the most vulnerable. Not because they are more guilty, but because it is they who are blamed.

This is not a new phenomenon; Norwegian history has always been shaped by the state’s tragic abuse of Travellers, Gypsies, Jews and Sami. The demonisation of the enemies has always fulfilled its function, even if the enemies have changed with time.

Again we see this absurd willingness to find excuses for Islam and to try and convince the readers that the people who carried out these evil attacks were abusing the religion of Islam. Did it ever occur to the MSM that Breivik was perhaps abusing the writings of opponents of Islam in his manifesto?

Here’s another quote from Dagbladet, from March 15, 2004:

There is no room in the U.S. for ethnic nationalism. After September 11 many American Muslims felt persecuted, but a common front against Islam and Muslims never emerged. The risk that a European war against Islamic fundamentalism turns inward is much greater. And that would be just as helpful to bin Laden’s war of civilisations as the U.S. occupation war in Iraq. But the danger of this happening in Spain is perhaps less than in other countries in Europe, since Spain has a proud and knowledgeable relationship with its “Muslim past” under the Moors.

As we can see from this quote Dagbladet will also engaged in historic revisionism if they suspect that it will promote their agenda, which of course is to ridicule opponents of Islam and absolve Islam of any wrongdoing.

And this exoneration of Islam also occurred in the wake of the London attacks, when Islamic suicide bombers, home grown this time, decided to detonate rucksacks stuffed with explosives on packed commuter trains and busses in order to strike at the heart of the evil empire of the unbelievers. Like all the other Islamic terrorists before them, the London bombers found justifications for their actions in the Koran and in the hadith, but the MSM refused even to contemplate this piece of vital information. Instead they resorted to what they’d done in all the other major terrorists’ attacks, namely, find excuses for Islam and Muslims.

In Dagbladet on July 7, 2005, Tony Blair was quoted:

The Muslim Council of Britain says in a statement that they condemn those responsible for the terrorist bombings.

“These evil atrocities make us all victims. The evil people want to demoralise us as a nation and divide us as people, the Council writes, and it encourages everyone to help the police find the culprits.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair is delighted that the Council so clearly distances themselves from the terror. “The terrorists are acting in the name of Islam, but I know that the great majority of Muslims worldwide do not support this terror,” says Blair.

Maybe the Muslim Council of Britain found it expedient to condemn the attack with all the media attention on them. But it’s an undeniable fact that figures from a survey conducted in the British Muslim community found that more than 13 percent of British Muslims supported Islamic terrorism. This finding certainly contradicts the message that the Islamic council was trying to convey, and it certainly didn’t support the notion that the majority of the Muslim community in the UK renounced this terrorist attack. Nor did Tony Blair’s claim that the majority of the world’s Muslim community reject this terrorist attack carry a high degree of accuracy. But for Dagbladet the important thing is to print articles finding excuses for Islam, and not to expose Islam for what it is.

And, as always whenever Islamic terrorists strike, Norwegian political commentators line up to join the exoneration of Islam. This time it was Norwegian bishop Ole Christian Kvarme’s turn to join the choir. In an article from VG Nett, July 14, 2005, Bishop Kvarme stated:

Fanaticism that commits violence in the name of God is rebellion against God and a fundamental betrayal of His creation. No religious reasons, no political goal can justify such acts of violence.

“We will continue together to counter the attacks of religious minorities in our own country and help create trust and openness between the groups in our society,” says Kvarme.

“Jews, Christians and Muslims have some common values, and this congregation of different faiths is a selection of these common values, which are important in a society. It is also important for us to help build trust between different social groups.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if the MSM newspaper in Norway stood up at least once for the conservative blogosphere and the Progress Party?

And wouldn’t it be nice if at least one MSM newspaper actually sat down and studied the message of the Counterjihad community instead of assuming things and passing judgements on those who don’t subscribe to the official line in these matters?

And wouldn’t it be nice if the MSM at least once put Islam under the magnifying glass instead of constantly trying to find excuses in order not to ‘disturb’ the very fragile cohesion between the various ethnic and religious groups in this country?

And, by the way, in this case the bishop is either deliberately lying or he is just plain ignorant. If he had actually read the Koran he would have known that it commands Muslims to fight unbelievers. Violence in this context is in fact encouraged in Islam, and it is certainly not a rebellion against Allah. In fact, the suicide bombers found their justification in Islamic doctrines.

But despite the massive media coverage urging people not to pass hasty and unfounded judgments on Islam, the Muslim community in London still lamented the fact that they were being unfairly stigmatised after the attacks. Another quote from Aftenposten July 9, 2005:

The Muslims in London are upset, angry and worried. They are sad because the city where they feel at home has become the battleground for terrorists. They are angry because extreme Muslims will bring attention to their ethnic group. And they are concerned about how the rest of the population in England will deal with them after this incident. After the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, they experienced several negative reactions. Now it may happen again, and this time perhaps even with greater force.

Erna Solberg, the leader of the conservative Party in Norway, even went so far as to compare Norwegians’ attitudes towards Muslims with German anti-Semitism in the 1930s. She made this comparison based on the writings published on anti-Islamic websites such as Document.no, which is very strange, as there is nothing in these writings that could even be construed as incitement to hatred or incitement to commit violence towards the Muslims, as of course was the case of the vile anti-Semitism in pre-war Germany. Mrs Solberg is also guilty of stigmatising the entire Norwegian population for harbouring strong anti-Muslim sentiments as a result of some articles published on a handful of conservative websites. What Mrs Solberg is guilty of here is nothing less than vicious slander, whose only goal is to intimidate others from expressing similar anti-Islamic views.

There’s also an implicit threat in all the vitriolic slander that has been presented in the MSM recently, which designed is to show people that they will receive the same treatment if they dare to overstep the line and question the official policy in this matter.

Regarding the media in Norway, this biased reporting is only feasible because the majority of journalists in Norway vote for left-wing political parties. It’s also made possible because of the massive subsidies that the authorities give to the media, which of course raises some serious questions about the independence of the press in Norway. The main television broadcaster in Norway NRK is state owned and the CEO is selected by the Government.

Additionally, the labour union which most journalists in Norway belong to, Norsk Journalistlag is left-wing, and it exerts influence over its members in various matters. It even printed a leaflet in the early 1990s instructing its members how they should cover cases regarding Multiculturalism, and avoid stereotyping the immigrant community in Norway. In the leaflet members were encouraged to:

• Be aware of the language you use. Try to use words and phrases that give an accurate and correct picture of Norwegian society. Avoid using language that creates unnecessary differences among the ethnic groups.
• Avoid generalising when writing about immigrants; this will only strengthen negative stereotypes of people of non-Norwegian descent.
• When writing about the multicultural society, try to focus on ordinary immigrants and how they experience everyday life in Norway.
• Never reveal a person’s religion, ethnicity or cultural background if it’s not absolutely relevant to the case. Be very careful with this information when writing about incidents involving crime.
• Always check facts and statistics. Be very careful with statistics that could strengthen negative stereotypes of ethnic minorities.
• Feel free to write about negative incidents where immigrants are involved, but avoid angles that will give the entire immigration population a bad name.
• Try to find as many sources as possible among the immigrant population. This will give you a wider perspective when writing stories about immigrants.
• Try to avoid patriotic rhetoric in sport journalism. This will give room to negative stereotyping of foreigners. Try instead to focus on the contributions of foreigners in Norwegian sports.
• Avoid uncritical reports of racial abuse. Always double check information and accusations originating from racist organisations. Always get information that will counter racist propaganda.
• Try to stay clear of political rhetoric that will increase immigration phobia and increase hostility towards immigrants. Try to avoid writing stories that will increase hostilities between Norwegians and immigrants.
• Try to describe how immigrants experience discrimination, racism and immigration phobia, and try to focus on how these things affect their lives.

Maybe the MSM should put away the leaflet for a second or two and actually try to engage in real journalism instead of being the propaganda machine for the establishment? Perhaps then we would see some honest journalistic reporting for a change.

Some thoughts on the Oslo terrorist attacks

July 22, 2011 will be a day Norwegians will remember for the rest of their lives. It was the day when the ugly face of terrorism made its appearance and delivered a decisive and deadly blow at the heart of what used to be a good and safe country to grow up in.

Many people naturally assumed that it was the work of radical Islamists when they first heard of the attack. It made sense, since radical Islamists are behind almost every single terrorist attacks in the world today. But when it was eventually confirmed that the perpetrator was a non-Muslim ethnic Norwegian, many reacted with utter disbelief. They found it almost impossible to comprehend. How could a Norwegian do such a terrible thing? Surely Norwegians don’t behave in such a manner? Personally, I wasn’t all that surprised. What surprised me was that it had taken this long for something to happen. The tensions have been simmering for decades now, and it finally came to a boil.

In the aftermath of any catastrophe or traumatic event questions needs to be asked. Could anything have been done to prevent this disaster, and should we have been able to foresee these attacks?

These questions will be asked for years to come and different people will give different answers. Some will try to be as honest and truthful as possible, but other more unscrupulous souls will use this incident ruthlessly as part of their political strategy. The mostly leftist media in Norway have chosen this later path. The debate has been raging ever since the attacks, and left-wing journalists and left-wing political commentators have had a field day ever since they discovered the identity of the perpetrator. When it finally dawned on them that it was a Norwegian male with “right-wing extremist” views who was behind it all, they started pouncing on the conservative wing of the blogosphere with gusto unlike anything we’ve seen in Norway for a long time.

It doesn’t matter to the MSM that the right-wing community in Norway have never advocated violence, but rather spoken out about the dangers of an unrestricted immigration and asylum policy. But why should the media let facts get in the way of a good story? It’s not surprising at all. Everyone with of average observational ability knows that the media in Norway have given Islam a free pass.

The cowardly deference Norwegian papers bestow on the practitioners of Islam is mind-boggling. One could be excused for believing that the majority of journalists in Norway are in fact Muslims. But this is not the case. The typical left-wing journalist in Norway is a radical atheist. But the way he or she keep idolizing the practitioners of Islam has almost taken on a religious character.

The Norwegian media still continue to praise and make excuses for Islam, just as they have done following every single Muslim terrorist attack since 9/11. They don’t call for measures to be taken to root out undemocratic and extremist views from mosques in Norway the way they are demanding of the rightwing Norwegian blogosphere at the moment. They still praise Islam, even though the intelligence services in Norway have stated that Islam poses a far more serious threat to the country than any right-wing Norwegian extremist.

Nor was it a surprise that they would stoop this low, to unscrupulously use a massacre to try and stifle the debate on Islam and restrict freedom of speech in Norway even further. The right was finally starting to gain some ground in Norway by sticking to facts and trends. The only way the left could hope to discredit them was by the use of deceit and intimidation, and the left have taken to this task since the attacks like a duck takes to water.

But no one in the left-wing media or the left-wing political establishment has so far addressed the pink elephant in the room, which is of course the sacred multicultural project, the highly prestigious pet project of the political elites. No one seems to be willing even to hint that Breivik’s actions could perhaps be a direct result of the totalitarian and autocratic nature of the current immigration and asylum policies that are in place in Norway today. The Norwegian authorities, like in most Western “democracies”, have chosen to exclude the majority of the population from having any say whatsoever regarding the matter. Only the privileged few in the higher echelons of the political establishment get to have their say on this matter, and they’re all enthusiastic proponents of the scaling down of Norwegian culture and Norwegian majority population in Norway. If they have their way Norway will soon resemble a miniature version of the UN, where people from all corners of the globe will have an equal stake in the country. In his manifesto Breivik prominently mentioned his hatred for the political elites and their undemocratic facilitation of the multicultural society.

I certainly don’t believe the pathetic hype that the extreme leftist MSM is trying to sell to the masses that Breivik had been brainwashed by these right-wing bloggers, I think Breivik, like any sane Norwegian, was able to see the consequences of the disastrous Norwegian deconstruction policies first hand, and decided that he didn’t like what he was seeing. He would also have realised after a while that there was very little the average person in Norway could do to change these things. He probably also came to the conclusion that the political elites were acting in a very undemocratic manner when it came to implementation of these policies.

In the last 20-25 years the multicultural project has resulted in a transformation of Norwegian society that is so monumental that it almost defies belief. The society that Breivik grew up in is completely alien to the society we have today. In 1980 there were only 1,000 registered Muslims in Oslo. Today immigrants and their descendants make up 8 to 12 percent of the total population of the country, depending on how you classify an immigrant. It is almost unthinkable that someone like Breivik would have carried out such an attack in Norwegian 25-30 years ago. It would never have happened, because there wasn’t any danger of Norwegians ending up as a minority in their own country back then. Today, however, this is a very likely scenario.

Breivik is rightly referred to as an extremist by both sides of the political spectrum. He’s an extremist in the way he behaved, willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve his political goals. But the authorities in Norway are also extremists. It’s an extremist ideology to try and completely alter the demographic makeup of your own country and to render your compatriots a minority. And it’s extremely undemocratic to make such a decision without first consulting the national populace.

Breivik is an extremist, but his view that Islam is the biggest single threat to the West today is not in my opinion an extremist view. It’s a realistic and truthful view. It’s much more extreme to accommodate and facilitate the mass influx of immigrants that Norwegian authorities have done for the last three decades.

Conservative and anti-Islamic blogs have only emerged into the light of day because of the gross misconduct of the governments of the West in this matter. The anti-Islamic political commentators haven’t appeared because the people of the West have a strong dislike people for people of Arabic descent. The people of the West are probably the most generous and tolerant people in the world today. The truth is that the people of the West have reached this stage because they are worried, and rightly so, about the undemocratic doctrines of the religion of Islam. They have foreseen an immigration policy and a cowardly appeasement towards Islam that is going to lead the continent towards a catastrophe if it is not dealt with properly.

This terrorist attacks clearly shows that there is a democratic deficit in Norway. One can only hope that the authorities are going to reflect on this and not continue on the same path they have for the last few decades, completely ignoring the will of the people. The Norwegian people rejected EU membership twice in referendums in 72 and 94. They rejected it because they didn’t want to be governed by undemocratic elites in Brussels, but the Norwegian authorities couldn’t care less, and they have as per today implemented more EU directives than any other country in the EU zone. And we’re not even members of this undemocratic organization!

The Schengen agreement — which has facilitated the enormous influx of asylum seekers — has never been submitted to a referendum, and the Norwegian people have never had a say in this matter. This is not what democracy is meant to be like. Democracy is supposed to enable majority rule, not minority rule. Nor has the EEA treaty, of which Norway is a signatory and which is basically a miniature EU membership, been submitted to a referendum.

Last year more than twenty thousand asylum-seekers arrived in Norway, most of them bogus, and most of them without any need for protection. Even the UDI (Department of Immigration) has admitted that 90 percent of all asylum-seekers arriving in Norway are bogus. Still these asylum seekers are allowed to stay, and with all the legal loopholes they’re allowed to remain in Norway for years, and many of them get to stay in the country permanently. Is that democratic? Even asylum-seekers who have committed rape and other serious crimes are allowed to stay. All expenses paid. This massive influx of asylum seekers would have been impossible had it not been for the borderless Europe, courtesy of the Schengen agreement — to which, as mentioned previously, the majority of Norwegians have never given their consent. And it’s all made possible thanks to a tiny minority of elite politicians that have indicated that they couldn’t care less about the wishes of the Norwegian people.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg mentioned in his speech after the attacks that the ones who did this were never going to destroy our Norwegian democracy, but many Norwegians would argue that Norwegian democracy doesn’t exist anymore. It’s just a word without any meaning, used to describe the political system that we all pretend that we have in Norway. Breivik is merely a symptom of this democratic deficit. In reality the only real political influence Norwegian voters have these days is the opportunity to cast their ballot card every four years, and that’s about it. The voters get to choose their own dictators. There really aren’t any significant differences in the established political parties. They all embrace multiculturalism to varying degrees. I maintain that Breivik’s actions could only be possible in a country where democratic principles have been thrown on the rubbish tip, and Norway is most definitely such a country.

What will happen in the aftermath of this incident? In many ways I believe the authorities are relieved that the incidents were carried out by an ethnic Norwegian “right-wing extremist”, and not by Islamic extremists. It means they get to continue to abuse their power for another couple of years at least. It would have been a different story if it had been an Islamic terrorist attack. If that had been the case, the media response would have been completely different. True, there wouldn’t have been any unified calls for stronger measures taken against the Muslim community, nor would there have been any calls for clamping down on Muslim blogs and internet sites. We all know the mantra by heart now: Muslims are peaceful and Islam is the religion of peace.

But at least we wouldn’t have to listen to the hypocrites of the extreme left demonising the honest people of the right for their “fascist mentality” and supposed eagerness to aid and abet terrorists, all thanks to the action of a lone psychopathic madman who didn’t like the multicultural society imposed on him by the leftist authorities.

Whenever there have been Islamic terrorist attacks — and they have been quite numerous — the authorities and the media have always advised us not to draw any hasty conclusions. And they have always reminded us that the great majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding. One single and very lone right-wing extremist strikes, and the entire right-wing community in Norway are made culpable. Blogs, authors and internet forums are instantly labelled breeding grounds for violent rightwing extremism.

The foreign minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Store, even went to a local mosque in Oslo in the aftermath of the attacks and apologised on behalf of the Norwegian people to the congregation for Norwegians having the gall to initially suspect that this was a Muslim terrorist attack. And I can guarantee that Gahr Store will very soon be back in the Middle East revisiting his buddies in Hamas and calling for a dialogue with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but then again those groups are “freedom fighters” and not terrorists.

Breivik’s actions are inexcusable and his motivation for targeting his victims is peculiar. But there is no denying that he planned his actions meticulously, and that there was a method to his madness. Unlike most terrorists, he also planned the aftermath of the attacks in great detail. He wrote a 1500-page manifesto in which he laid out with detailed precision and accuracy what is wrong with the West today and how a solution can be reached. He has made this manifesto public online, where it has gone viral. It has probably been downloaded by several million people by now. He decided to be captured alive so that he could use his court case as a media platform to convey his views and political ideas. These ideas would never have reached the MSM otherwise.

The authorities should ask themselves some serious questions about the effects of their multicultural policies in the aftermath of this event, and not give the impression that they’re even more determined to continue with these policies in the future. Is it a logical and rational response to an attack that came about as a direct consequence of this policy? Do the authorities really believe that the people share their enthusiasm about the destruction of their own unique race and culture? A question that is worth asking is how many immigrants the authorities believe Norway can accept before serious tensions begin to arise. The majority in Norway are opposed to this immigration, so why do the authorities till embrace it? Why don’t they listen to their own people?

The current political establishment is guilty of creating an atmosphere where attacks such as Breivik’s are possible. Many Norwegians feel that there is almost a complete breakdown of law and order in Norway at the moment. There certainly is a complete breakdown in border control which has enabled hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to settle in Norway on unjust grounds, many of them criminals and many of them welfare recipients adding a great burden to Norwegian taxpayers. And this influx is going to continue in the future, because the authorities are unwilling to and totally inadequate at dealing with these issues in a proper manner.

Wherever there is an absence of hope, there’s fertile ground for desperation and radical reactions. For some time now we’ve had articles in the media predicting that within the next few decades ethnic Norwegians will become a minority in their own country, but there’s hardly any debate about this in political circles. The political establishment seems content with this scenario, but the people certainly aren’t, and that is something that the authorities need to realise as soon as possible.

Justice in Norway?

Do we have true justice in today’s society, or has the means to provide justice been hijacked by exclusive elites who are more concerned about their own political and personal ambitions than looking after the interests of the people they are supposed to represent?

In Norway today politicians introduce new laws in order to push through unpopular political change and then blame it on the laws they themselves worked tirelessly to introduce when the public turn on them venting their frustration about the political direction the country is taking.

Why is it so?

It’s so because most politicians realize that it’s easy to change the political direction of a country provided the desire for a change is there, it is however a different scenario to scrap newly introduced laws and implement new ones that goes against these. When these new laws also bring about a political change that is ideological similar to the political views of the politicians that introduced them their political views become the law of the land. The most honest thing would be to refer to them as politicized laws.

The Norwegian trend is to invite various intergovernmental organizations to dictate Norwegian law. The majority of the new laws introduced in Norway today, are on the bequest of the UN, EU and other non-governmental non-Norwegian organizations. And unfortunately Norwegian politicians are more than happy to oblige because ideologically they share their views.

Again it’s a case of ensuring that their policies are upheld by the law even when they go against the will of the people, something which the Norwegian constitution was intended to protect us against. In Norway it seems that justice has simply become too important to be handled by anyone but a selected few belonging to the inner circles of the ruling elites, and they’ll do anything in their power to ensure that it stays like that. In Norway justice is simply not for ordinary people anymore. People that are more democratically inclined might ask themselves why it is that ordinary people, for a lack of a better word, aren’t given a say in how the laws of the nation are shaped or at least consulted before new ones are introduced. We supposedly live in a democracy where political elections determine the political future and the people have their say at the polling booth, so why is it so different when it comes to the judicial system?


Both the Norwegian and American constitutions were written by the people and for the people, so why is it so out of bounds for the people these days? Can justice really be democratic if it is dictated by a tiny minority? Shouldn’t justice reflect the sentiments of the majority? The sad truth is that people in Norway had more influence over their own lives during the Viking Age when all free citizens were involved in forming the laws of their local communities. They had a much greater influence in defining justice than people in Norway have today, where they have no influence at all. In the Viking age ordinary people had the right to rid themselves of local kings and chiefs that overstepped their authority. That option is not available anymore and it’s a real shame because democracy and justice in Norway today is nothing but a charade.

Humanitarian aid is killing the third world.

Had it not been for the disastrous consequences and irreparable damage it has caused to the world it would be quite tempting to laugh at the righteous and hypocritical individuals who curse the west for not doing enough to eradicate poverty in the third world. What makes it even worst is that the majority of these do-gooders are only interested in helping the destitute of the third world in order to feel good about themselves and to show the world how morally superior they are in doing so. It would be tempting to laugh at them and their folly because they haven’t even realized that they are the ones who’re asphyxiating the third world and exacerbating the problems of the continent with their brainless and immoral actions.

The world is facing massive problems due to an out of control population growth which has accelerated wih lightening speed after the end of WW2 and which will cause enormous suffering and misery when the resources eventually runs out. The population growth is occurring in the third world and it is causing an astronomical growth in poverty levels. The only reason it’s happening is because of the actions of some individuals in the west who define themselves as idealists have allowed it to happen. These individuals have advocated and lobbied for massive foreign and humanitarian aid to the third world for decades now and they have managed to con the world into believing that it’s the moral thing to do, and they have convinced the west that their actions will eventually cause an end to the suffering, which of course is so far from the truth at it is humanly possible to get because in reality it is only exacerbating the problems and causing unnecessary suffering and misery.

What these self-righteous do-gooders are doing is morally wrong. Their actions are the biggest factor in driving poverty levels up in the third world. Their humanitarian aid is killing the continent and ensuring that the nations affected will never be able to become self sufficient and move forward in the right direction. These misguided do-gooders may save a million lives in the short term when they feed famine stricken regions, but in the long term their actions are only producing more desperate and starving people whose only prospects are looking forward to the next famine to hit. And in the interval they’ll have numerous children who they will be incapable of looking after and who the vultures from the big TV News Channels and NGO’s can take advantage of in order to drive up western guilt sufficiently in order to avert another humanitarian man made catastrophe in the third world. But at some stage there will simply be too many mouths to feed and millions will die.

And it’s not only an increase in population numbers that these do-gooders can take credit for, they’re also responsible for ruining the local business markets. Can anyone be expected to make a living selling bread if bread is distributed free of charge by a humanitarian agency next door? And who can make a living growing corn or keeping life stock if corn and beef are handed out by the same humanitarian agency? It would probably be bad for business in the western world if groceries and other necessities were handed out free of charge by African humanitarian agencies, so why do these western agencies get away with in the third world?

The third world will have to sort out its own problems. The west can’t do it for them. And if the west keeps insisting on giving foreign aid to the developing world, this aid should at least have strings attached. A minimum requirement would be to demand that these countries take control of their population growth and stop exporting their population surplus to the developed world. It is the miserable living conditions in the third world, caused by this population explosion, which is the driving force behind the mass immigration from the third world to the countries of the developed world, which again is causing a severe deterioration in our living standards. And it is funny to observe the same do-gooders which caused this dire situation in the first place criticise the west for implementing immigration policies that are too restrictive in an attempt to dissuade people in the third world from undertaking the perilous journey to the promised continent.

But of course this fact is completely lost on them.

Possible future scenarios for Europe.

A scenario that has been widely debated over the last decades is a possible Muslim takeover of Europe within the next 30-40 years. It has become somewhat of an academic puzzle for the politically correct elites, a question that must be discussed, but not taken too literally. After all, according to this elite, the Muslims will eventually integrate into our societies, provided we treat them properly and give them enough time. They are simply Europeans with another color and cultural background. Nothing to really worry about.

For others with a more highly developed sense of survival instinct, this scenario is the cause of grave concern. It’s simply a problem that has to be dealt with, whether we like it or not, and the fact that we’re starting to shed light on it, is a sign that we’re willing to do so. The first step of solving a problem is to admit that we actually have one.

But there’s one scenario that hasn’t been debated to nearly the same extent, and that is how this eventual transformation from a Christian to an Islamic continent will manifest itself.

Will it be a violent clash between the two cultures that will leave the continent in ruins?

Will western Europe resemble war torn Chechnya after the final battles have been fought?

Or will it be a peaceful takeover, where the Europeans simply concede defeat and succumb to the stronger and much more aggressive tactics of the newcomers?

Or will the Europeans rise up to this challenge and resist the onslaught from the invading Muslims, and eventually win this fight?

I believe there are six possible outcomes to this crisis:

 

1.		The Muslims will win by sticking to democratic principles. Peaceful victory.
2.		The Muslims will win by undemocratic principles. Terror campaigns and intimidation.
3.		The native populations of Europe will revolt and defeat the Muslims. A revolt.
4.		Major terrorist attacks will cause the governments in Europe to reconsider their position on Muslim immigration, and start the deportations of Muslims on a grand scale.
5.		A coexistence between the two cultures, where both groups are given an equal status. Not a very likely scenario.
6.		An uneasy status quo, where immigration is curbed, and the Muslims will forever be a minority.

At the present time alternative #1 looks to be the most likely outcome, but of course things could change in a heartbeat. If there’s one thing that history has taught us, it is that rapid change is the norm rather than the exception.

There’s no question that the liberal laws of the present European governments work in the Muslims’ favor. All they have to do is sit back, act in accordance with the democratic principles in the societies they reside in, and high birthrates and the open border policies of the West will make them a majority within the next couple of generations.

All they need to do is blend in and seize control when they’re strong enough to do so.

But of course, there are several factors that need to be brought into the equation. Political views that are considered the norm today can easily be discarded for more radical and pragmatic ideas in the future. We’ve witnessed liberal European governments introduce very tough immigration and asylum laws, and others could follow suit.

So let’s assume that things stay the way they are for the next thirty years. Let’s assume that the European governments decide to introduce tougher anti-discrimination laws, and clamp down on what they view as anti-Muslim sentiments. Let’s also assume that they start persecuting people with opposing views on this issue. The immigration would then continue, and quite possibly accelerate, making it next to impossible to prevent Muslims from becoming a majority in Europe.

If this scenario were to take place, the question one would have to ask is: what kind of society would rise up from the ashes? Would we get a moderate form of Euro-Islam, like the proponents of the multicultural society hope for, where a relatively moderate Muslim population would accept and tolerate other religions and values? Or would they, with or without democratic means, decide to introduce an Islamic caliphate, where Sharia law takes superiority over existing criminal laws?

Like many other people, I see the term Euro-Islam simply as a smokescreen that the elites use as a means to try to pacify the native populations of Europe.

Let’s face it, Muslims believe in the writings of the Holy Koran, and not in any utopian illusions that some non-believing bureaucrats in Europe may hold. It is my opinion that the Muslims would use our undying belief in democracy against us if it came down to it, and simply point out the obvious, which would be, that they won the referendum fair and square and they’re going to introduce the Islamic caliphate whether we like it or not. And technically this would be within the boundaries of accepted democratic rules. What the majority decides, goes. The native Europeans would then have to decide whether to accept this new regime or not.

Alternative #2 is also a likely outcome. We’ve seen the emergence of radical Muslim elements in our societies that are advocating such a solution. We’ve had several devastating terrorist attacks within the last few years that has have made us reconsider our beliefs that we live in free and open democratic societies.

These attacks along with other forms of intimidation have already eroded some of our freedoms. We think twice about criticizing Islam in public, and we refrain from publishing any drawings that could be deemed offensive to the Muslim community. There is no question in my mind that the results of the scare tactics are viewed as small victories among radical Muslims, and only make them more determined to push forward with their plans for overthrowing our democratic societies.

It doesn’t take that much effort to subjugate the masses. And a small group of highly dedicated and trained individuals could easily wreak havoc in our societies if they so choose. If ordinary people feel that they’re putting their lives on the line just by venturing down to the local supermarket or by simply hopping on the tube to go to work, we’ve entered a very critical phase.

If we end up with a spiral of violence in Europe on a similar magnitude of, let’s say, South Africa, where crime is a very real part of everyday life, we’ve passed a point of no return. How long could we survive in such a violent environment? The next natural progression would be a situation similar to the one we have in parts of Iraq, a total breakdown of law and order. If the governments should prove unsuccessful in weeding out the insurgents in such an environment, which is the most likely scenario? Would it be that unheard of for them to try an negotiate a truce? European politicians have been keen advocates of “land for peace” deals in other parts of the world. Would they consider such an option in Europe if the result would be a cessation of hostilities?

The third possible scenario would be the creation of armed European resistance groups. This is very plausible option. We’ve seen such groups operate in Europe before, both during and after the Second World War. If people feel they’re being pushed too far, they’ll eventually start to push back. In the novel Hvitvasking (Money laundry) by Tom Kristiensen (Norwegian author), a clandestine group of Norwegian patriots plans to rid Norway of third-world immigrants. The methods they rely upon are similar to those the terrorists use in present-day Iraq, a war of intimidation and scare tactics. They try to create an environment so hostile and dangerous that the immigrants themselves choose to leave the country.

I believe this would be the tactic of choice adopted by such resistance groups. It has proven highly successful in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Sudan, just to mention a few. It is very hard to fight such unconventional guerrilla groups, mostly because they can hide amongst the civilian population after they’ve carried out their attacks. It would also be very easy for them to identify members of the Muslim population, but equally difficult for the Muslims and the authorities to identify members of these resistance groups, simply because the members of these groups share the same ethnicity as the majority population in Europe. I am of the opinion that everyone sooner or later will succumb to these scare tactics. Just as the native European population are intimidated by radical Muslims at the present time, Muslims would be equally intimidated by Europeans if they were targeted in a similar way. It would be a totally new experience for them.

The fourth possible scenario is one where terrorist attacks just become too frequent and the loss of lives too hard to tolerate, or that the elite themselves are being targeted by the terrorists. If we get frequent terrorist attacks on the same scale as 9/11 or even bigger, say the partial or total destruction of some of our major cities, it would next to impossible for European governments not to introduce radical measures to rid themselves of this threat. If the number of terrorist attack victims reach into the tens of thousands, or possibly even hundreds of thousands, they would have to act. It is not unthinkable that mass deportation of Muslims then would take place, and that the creation of detention camps like the one at Guantanamo Bay would go ahead.

If, on the other hand, after incidents like these, some politicians still wouldn’t act, something that’s very unlikely, it would still create an ambiance where more radical and pragmatic politicians would win landslide elections, and the execution of these plans would go ahead. I think ordinary people’s survival instinct would override any other human instincts, including any utopian reference to human rights and religious freedom.

A fifth scenario is a peaceful or hostile coexistence between the two cultures. Where both are granted equal status, and where segregation, both cultural and demographic, only increases. It would be a continuation of today’s status quo. This is not a very plausible scenario, because both cultures have shown their unwillingness to live under such unnatural conditions. Sooner or later one of the cultures would resort to undemocratic methods to exert their will over the other.

The sixth scenario is one where the governments of Europe finally see the dangers of the influx of immigrants, and ban immigration from third world countries altogether, but allow the ones that are already here to stay. This could be the outcome if the people in Europe elect radical right-wing politicians to office. As described above, they introduce tough new measures to stop the rapid growth of immigrants in Europe. Maybe they would go as far as introducing a one-child policy for all third-world immigrants, or resort to other economic sanctions to achieve this goal. They could possibly even ban Islam altogether in Europe, or at least ban the radical approach to the religion that the Islamists follow.

This would then lead to a situation where Europe forever would have an ethnic minority within its borders, a continuation of the present day situation. The Muslims living in Europe could then of course choose to either sever all ties to their native countries and perhaps reform their religion, or still choose to cling on to their old culture and strive to change the system to their advantage.

No matter what happens to this continent, whether a full scale war breaks out or not, it’s going to get very nasty. I believe that a rapid deterioration will first occur in one nation, and then others will follow in its track, or chose to introduce countermeasures to prevent a similar fate. It is naïve to expect that an atmosphere of tranquil coexistence is going to last forever here in Europe.

War and hostilities have been the norm here, and not the exception. That’s probably also how it’s going to be in the future.