Some thoughts on the Breivik verdict

Also published at Gates of Vienna

 

Anders Behring Breivik has been found to be criminally sane by the court in Oslo, which means that he is going to serve his sentence in a prison as opposed to a closed ward in a psychiatric hospital. Not that it really matters that much in the big scheme of things; he would have been transported back to his isolated custom-designed hypermodern state-of-the-art wing at Ila prison regardless of whether he was found insane or not.

The fact that Breivik will spend the rest of his life in relative cushy surroundings paid for by the Norwegian taxpayers bothers me, but there are other aspects about this depressing case that bother me even more, such as the signals the Norwegian authorities are sending out to the rest of the world. They are basically telling the terrorists of the world to head for Norway and engage in bloody carnage. And if the terrorists take them up on their offer, the effeminate Norwegian authorities will not mistreat them, and under no circumstances will they dream about violating their ‘sacred’ human rights.

Nor will the terrorists have to worry about failing their missions, as the Norwegian police and intelligence agencies are blatantly incompetent and will never be able to foil any terrorist attacks. An added bonus is that under no circumstances will these agencies execute their job properly — which would be to, under exceptional circumstances, risk their lives in order to save innocent people from being slaughtered in front of their very eyes. In such scenarios they will begin debating among themselves what the proper legal response is and then await confirmation from their superiors before they act.

The Norwegian authorities will even supply the terrorists with a platform from which they can disseminate their hateful rhetoric and propaganda while they smirk and revel in their own cleverness and the stupidity of the ‘Norgies’.

Because who’s to say that Al Qaeda or some other parasitic terrorist organization won’t take them up on their offer? Pretty much anywhere else, such parasites would get a bullet in the head upon capture.

One social commentator, Hanne Nabintu Herland, dared to challenge the enforced state sanctioned consensus and suggested what any person of a sound mind was already thinking, namely that the police upon learning about the massacre at Utøya should have quickly scrambled a helicopter and sent a sniper to Utøya to kill Breivik to prevent him fulfilling his mission. For this she was vilified by the political correct morons who decide what ‘proper political’ discourse in Norway is and what isn’t. Their response was to rebuke her for daring to suggest such a thing; didn’t she know that even an individual like Breivik has rights?

It’s hard to come up with an appropriate response to such absolute nonsense, but then again if people are that far gone ideologically, common sense and logic will never be able to permeate their indoctrinated leftists’ brains. They will never be able to see the irrationality of their arguments.

Earlier today I watch a story on the news about Mark Chapman, the guy who assassinated John Lennon in NYC in 1980. Evidently Mr. Chapman was denied parole yet again. I think this was his seventh parole request. The parole board’s refusal to grant him his wish was based on what they perceived to be the sanctity of human life and Mr. Chapman’s blatant disregard for it when he chose to aim his gun at John Lennon and squeeze the trigger. Chapman has spent almost 32 years behind bars for killing one person. Breivik killed 77 plus he blew up a governmental building in downtown Oslo and was only handed a 21-year sentence by the Norwegian courts.

These very two different ways of reacting speak volumes for how human life is valued in the US versus Norway. In Norway human life is cheap. The murderer gets the silk glove treatment and the family and friends of the victims gets the fist in the face treatment. In the US the killer gets the punch in the face and not the next of kin of the victims.

Breivik was handed the ‘strictest’ sentence available to the courts in Norway, which is 21 years. But even so it is highly unlikely that the psychopathic monster will ever be able to enjoy life as a free man again. The forvaringsdom gives the prison management the opportunity to keep him locked up indefinitely if they should arrive at the conclusion in 2033 that he still constitutes a threat to society, and I am 99.9 percent sure that this is the conclusion they will arrive at.

If my daughter had been on Utøya that horrible day and fallen victim to the madman, I would have made it my life’s task to extinguish every bit of life in Anders Behring Breivik, and I wouldn’t really care how long this endeavour might have taken me or what the consequences were.

I would also have publicly demanded that the authorities execute the monster upon sentencing. But in Norway you’re not allowed to express such views, and if you do you’re ostracized from the ‘sanctimonious flock’. My hope is that maybe one day in the future Norwegians will find the courage to break free from the shackles of the current totalitarian climate and speak their minds. I also hope that in the future things will change politically in Norway and that we can rid ourselves of the disease of politically correctness and multiculturalism, but I fear that it will never happen, at least not until it is too late.

The political situation in Norway really upsets me. The only good thing that this sorry case has done for my country is to produce the July 22 report, which has highlight the numerous flaws that exist in Norwegian society — not that I think we are going to see any changes as a result of it.

European misfortune or orchestrated chaos?

Change seldom occurs by accident. More often than not there are tangible clues and signs which will give an indication of what lie ahead. In the world of politics, special advisors are tasked with foreseeing developments and anticipating consequences of polices and strategies made by politicians. These advisors are, at least in theory, better suited to gaze into the future and predict potential outcomes. It is their job to give feedback regarding the sustainability and likely results of these policies. This type of analysis takes place in most political organizations, and it certainly occurs within the EU, which is worth keeping in mind when trying to make sense of the seemingly unending string of failed strategies made by the organization in recent decades, and it is very important to remember when trying to decipher the unwillingness of the EU to correct its mistakes and re-adjust its political course.

If we accept that policies and political strategies made by the EU are well thought through and that they have been subjected to proper scrutiny within the organization, it is difficult to see that the current economic crisis in Europe has caught the top echelon of the organization by surprise. There are hundreds of political advisors employed by the EU who are tasked with giving advice and raise attention to potential problems that may arise as a result of flawed policies and it highly improbable that every single one of these advisors failed to foresee the political mess that has now befallen the continent. It’s also hard to accept that these experts got it so completely wrong when so many ordinary people all across Europe for years have been warning about the possibility of just such a scenario, which raises the question whether these advisors perhaps have understood all along how things would play out and that maybe everything has progressed according to plan, i.e. according to the wishes of those who pull the strings in the EU.

Even before the introduction of the Euro in 2002, there were many who warned about the possibility of a future economic collapse if the new currency ever were to see the light of day. Many also pointed out the dangers of tying strong economies such as the German one up against weaker economies in southern Europe, but unfortunately these warnings fell on deaf ears. The leadership of the EU went ahead and launched the new currency unperturbed by the dire predictions of its critics. The German mark which was one of the most stable currencies in the world was replaced with the Euro which drastically weakened the German economy by making it more susceptible to unwanted market fluctuations as the mechanisms of controlling the economy was taken out of the hands of the German authorities and left at the mercy of weaker economies within the union. Today we are able to see the folly of this move and we now know that those who criticised the tighter economic integration were right. It is obvious that the leadership of the EU were made aware of the risks involved with introducing the Euro and that risk assessments undertaken by the organization itself must have predicted such an outcome.

It is also hard to accept that the EU was oblivious to the financial acrobatics of the Greek authorities. And even if we accept that some within the hierarchy of the EU were kept in the dark, it’s ludicrous to suggest that all of them failed to see the potential catastrophic consequences that the Greek fiscal mismanagement would have for the rest of the EU. The truth is that the EU knowingly and fully aware of the dire consequences allowed Greece to run a ponzi scheme which has resulted in the collapse of the Greek economy and sent shock waves through the world financial markets. And Greece is by no means the only member country running such a ponzi scheme. Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal have also been exhibiting appalling fiscal responsibility almost on par with Greece. It is hard to comprehend that the EU was unaware of this, and it’s equally hard to understand why the organization failed to intervene. The fact that the EU decided to sit back and watch as the mega disaster gained momentum puts the organization in a very peculiar light indeed. One could of course argue that the financial grief that is currently plaguing Europe was caused by the collapse of the American real estate market which sent the world into a recession.  And this is partially true, but it is not the full story. The financial calamity in the US has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that many EU nations have been living beyond their means for decades. The bank collapses in the USA was triggered by the collapse of the domestic US real estate market which in essence was an American ponzi scheme, not all that different to the one the Greeks were allowed to operate for so many years and which the EU should have been able to protect itself against. There were certainly no lack of alarms being raised by economists and financial experts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean in the lead up to this disaster.

So if we accept that the leadership of the EU knew about the unsustainability of the financial markets, and if we accept that they were more than capable of foreseeing the devastating results it would have on its members why didn’t they do anything about it? One possibility is that the current economic situation suits the EU just fine, and that it in fact is a prerequisite for implementing sweeping new changes which will propel the organization onto the next level and make it even stronger and more powerful. Since its inception the leadership of the EU has taken great steps to amass as much power as possible and over the years it has bequeathed itself ever wider and broader mandates and it is not unfair to suggest that it is in the process of transforming itself into a European version of the United States of America. But there is still a long way to go and it should be clear to everyone that the organization has now reached the critical stage where it can no longer charge ahead by means of normal democratic processes. The only way forward now is by using undemocratic means, which it has already shown that it is willing to do, as was clearly demonstrated in the Lisbon treaty travesty.

It’s not an impossibility that the EU’s next step is to try and force through new reforms and changes by giving itself dictatorial powers through calculated campaigns of temporary orchestrated financial chaos. Nor is it unthinkable that the organization will attempt to exploit the current financial mess in order to take another step towards creating a European super state. There have already been talks about establishing special EU committees which will have the power to control and reject national budgets of member states in order to resolve the current crisis and avert future ones. It is very doubtful that the EU would get away with such devious schemes under normal circumstances. And when we realize this it’s not that farfetched to theorize that the EU has helped facilitate the economic crisis and that it has played an active role in undermining the Greek economy, which of course can easily be repaired if the EU gets to control the national budgets of its member states. If we accept that one way of accumulating power and extending its mandate is by exploiting exceptional circumstances such as financial crises and conflicts, or the possibility of conflicts, it’s not unrealistic to suspect that the EU would be capable of taking advantage of skirmishes and unrest on its external borders as a way of boosting its own influence. And let’s not forget that such a scenario occurring within its borders would present the organization with a very compelling argument to introduce special legislation and possibly even get away with issuing marshal laws.

What constitutes external threats? Well the establishment of Islamic states run in accordance with Islamic Sharia law on Europe’s doorsteps is one example, which is eerie considering that the EU has helped pave the way for such regimes in North Africa through its involvement in overthrowing colonel Ghadaffi in Libya and former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The new Egyptian president, Mohammad Mursi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is a radical Islamist political movement whose stated goal is to achieve world domination for Islam. The EU is also playing an active role in ousting the Assad regime in Syria which would pave the way for yet another Islamic state just beyond its borders. The possibility of having neighbours which could end up as miniature versions of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a scary scenario indeed and this could easily prompt the EU to implement new draconic laws.

Regardless one has to ask how the EU is able to justify its role in actively supporting hardcore Islamist in overthrowing secular regimes with a favourable attitude towards western interest. As it stands now the actions of the EU only gives rise to the thesis that the EU has assisted Islamists in order to increase its own influence in Europe.

Another scary scenario is civil unrest in the EU itself. Skirmishes in one or several EU member states could see the EU introduce new legislation and give itself dictatorial powers as a pretext to quell any assumed uprising or unrest. After WW2, if we look past the cold war and the civil war in FRY, Europe has been a very stable and safe continent which is mainly due to its homogenous populations and shared moral values. This is something that the EU has been working hard to undermine through the implementation of very liberal immigration and asylum laws which all member states are legally bound to follow. In fact this mission has been one of EU’s primary and most important goals and it has really picked up pace after the introduction of the Schengen treaty which saw the dismantling of national border checkpoints. Today it is possible to travel all the way from Greece in the south to the Scandinavian nations in the north without having to produce a passport or an ID card, which has significantly eased the free movement of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe. The treaty has been instrumental in fast tracking the multicultural European project which the EU has worked diligently to achieve. It is fair to assume that the leadership of the EU was made aware that this would happen when they introduced the treaty, and it has certainly laid the foundation for a divided continent in which serious ethnic conflicts has become a very real possibility. It has of course also presented the EU with an excuse to introduce new draconic laws in the event of ethnic motivated civil unrest.

When we take a look at all the facts and look at them in a truthful manner it’s not unreasonable to ask the question whether the EU is actively facilitating and exploiting volatile incidents both outside and inside its borders in order to drastically transform Europe. The changes that have occurred in the last decades suggest that this is the ultimate goal of the leadership of the organization. We have seen the introduction of the single currency, the introduction of the EU army, the introduction of the EU constitution and the introduction of an EU president. It is highly unlikely that the EU will succeed in moving forward, i.e. to integrate the continent even further by abolishing national parliaments, national armies, national languages etc. without taking on a more tyrannical form, and one way of achieving this is by using the strategy of conquer and divide.

When we examine the pieces of the massive puzzle that is the EU, the theory which is presented here is not all that farfetched. There could be some elements of truth to it, it could be dead on the money or it could be completely rubbish, but it is definitely not a theory taken out of thin air.  Whatever the truth, it is an undeniable fact that undemocratic nations are on the rise. In Asia, China is emerging as a new super power with imperialistic aspirations to match. Russia is another example and it shares a border with Europe. So does the Islamic world and it is not unrealistic that we will see the creation of radical Islamic empires in North Africa which will represent a serious threat to the national security of the EU nations. And there are no guarantees that the leadership of the EU intend for its member nations to remain democratic entities within the organization in the years to come. It’s not all that unrealistic to suspect that the EU will morph into a totalitarian European empire with an even more autocratic leadership in order to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay in the future. One thing that should be obvious to all is that the leadership of the EU are in many instances acting like little dictators.

Empirical Data vs. Ideological Theory

Also published at Gates of Vienna

No one has the ability to look into the future, and hence no one can accurately predict what it has in store for us. All we can do is to look at present and historic trends and draw upon lessons from the past. When we add all these factors together and look at them in a truthful manner, we gain a fairly good idea of what to expect. When undertaking research projects, which in a way is almost like gazing into the future, there is only one method that we can rely upon, and that is a strict scientific approach which focuses solely on well-established ethical principles and whose ultimate goal is to uncover the truth unaffected by any other considerations.

Unfortunately, there are some who choose to employ unethical research methods in which ideological considerations are permitted to influence the outcome. Needless to say, this is a futile method which can only produce incorrect conclusions. The consequences of relying upon incorrect findings will in most fields of expertise result in undesired outcomes. In medicine, for instance, the act of prescribing incorrect medication or employing incorrect surgical methods can lead to devastating consequences and, in worst case scenarios, death. In engineering, erroneous calculations can result in serious accidents and potential catastrophic structural and mechanical failures.

The only way of judging any research is to subject it to critical analysis, which of course is an integral part of science. This means that anyone attempting to predict possible future scenarios will have to subject his or her thesis to critical scrutiny in order to determine its probability. It goes without saying that the more known factors the researchers can rely upon, the more accurate their conclusions are likely to be. The odds of reaching a meaningful outcome are a lot higher if the known factors comprise 90 percent and the unknowns 10 percent. And this is why it is essential to amass as much knowledge as possible before attempting to present a meaningful conclusion.

We have witnessed enormous technological advances in the last hundred years that can be directly attributed to science. However, despite the enormous technological progresses of the 20th century, there is still a strong reluctance within certain political strata to embrace scientific research methods on various topics. This is especially apparent in Norway at the moment, where supposedly prominent intellectuals are busy ridiculing individuals who are using strict scientific approaches to predict future demographic, financial and societal changes. This aversion to embracing honest research is disappointing, because the willingness to use such methods should be promoted regardless of its findings. The pursuit of truth is a noble goal.

When examining this unnatural aversion to honest research it becomes evident that there are powerful individuals who don’t want any critical light to be shed on sensitive topics such as Multiculturalism and Islam. This unwillingness to permit proper scrutiny on these subjects tells us a great deal. It tells us that these individuals are aware that an honest examination will arrive at conclusions that are at odds with their own ideology, and which could lead to a drastic shift in the ideological climate. There can therefore be no doubt that the desire to suppress honest research is deeply rooted in their ideology.

Let’s go through some of the known facts concerning these topics, and then have a look at the likely effects they will have on my native Norway and Europe as a whole.

It is an undeniable fact that the non-native Norwegian population has grown from 0 to 12 percent in just over 40 years. It’s also an undeniable fact that the ethnic Norwegian population is declining due to low birth-rates. The only conclusions that can be drawn from this knowledge is that if these trends are allowed to continue, ethnic Norwegians will at some stage in the future become ethnic minorities in their own country. This scenario also applies to many other Western European nations.

We also know that non-Western immigration is costing the Norwegian taxpayers billions of kroner each year. The SSB (the bureau of statistics) admitted recently for the first time that if current trends persist, by the year 2020 the Government’s expenses will exceed its revenues. The SSB also concluded that the entire oil fortune (the pension fund) will be gone by 2040 if drastic measures aren’t implemented. In other words, if current immigration and entitlements trends continue, Norway will eventually face bankruptcy. This is also a scenario that many other European nations are facing. One could in fact argue that Multiculturalism has contributed greatly to the current financial crisis which is slowly dragging the continent into the abyss.

It is also an irrefutable fact that non-Western immigration in Europe is a result of liberal asylum and family-reunification laws. The UDI (The Norwegian Department of Immigration) admitted in the mid 2000s that a mere 5 percent of individuals who apply for political asylum in Norway are in fact genuine refugees, which means that the Norwegian authorities are silently condoning illegal immigration under the guise of political asylum. If they wanted to, the Norwegian authorities could, without breaking any international conventions, reject the remaining 5 percent, as Norway isn’t the first safe port-of-call for these refugees. Genuine refugees have to apply for political asylum at their first safe destination.

It is also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-Western immigrants are over-represented in crime statistics, and that they in most cases chose to target indigenous Europeans. It’s also a known fact that there has been an astronomical increase in violent crimes in Europe in recent decades, and that this is largely due to immigration.

It has also been definitively established that ethnic tensions are prevalent in multicultural societies. In Oslo, which is the city with the highest immigrant population in Norway, white flight is a very real problem. Ethnic Norwegians leave areas where there is a high influx of non-Western immigrants. The main reasons for this indigenous exodus are insurmountable cultural differences and the desire to live in areas where there is a large population of ethnic Norwegians. There are countless of examples of ethnic Norwegian kids being targeted and physically assaulted by immigrant kids because of their ethnicity. This trend unfortunately also occurs in dozens of other European cities, many of which are a lot worse off than Oslo.

Concerning the religious problems facing Europe, or more truthfully the Islamic problem Europe is facing, it’s important to remember that Islam’s ultimate goal is to conquer wherever it goes and subject everyone it encounters to Islamic law (the Sharia). This is mandated by the Koran, and Muslims are expected to carry out this command. This is not necessarily the goal of every single Muslim, but it is important to keep in mind that even they have chosen to embrace an ideology which despises Western values and which at best can only be described as totalitarian.

Another known fact is that Muslims are gaining strength and becoming more influential in Europe. It’s also worth noting that a large portion of European-based Muslims are strong supporters of the introduction of Sharia, and that there is an abundance of evidence proving that they are more than willing to put brute force behind their demands. In the past few decades we’ve witnessed a growing trend of intimidation, both physically and mentally, of individuals who speak out against Islam. People have been killed in Europe for having ‘insulted’ Islam and offended honour of the Prophet Mohammed. Many people in Europe today live with 24/7 personal protection because of a very real fear of violent reprisals from Muslims.

There is also a concerted and well orchestrated campaign led by Muslims to pressure Europe into adopting Islamic customs and traditions. The Islamic nations of the world are hard at work encouraging the Western world through the workings of the OIC to give in to the ever-increasing demands of Islam. They want Europe to adopt legislation that makes it a criminal offence to insult Islam, and they want the universal declaration of Human rights to be subordinate to the Islamic Sharia. This should be a source of grave concern for the elites in Europe, as the OIC is the collective voice of every single Islamic nation in the world. This is what Muslims want, and they are putting their trust in the OIC to see the job through.

It’s also a known fact that since its inception Islam has been a conquering and marauding force with millions of lives on its conscience. We would do well to remember that Islam has made numerous violent incursions into Europe during its bloody 1400-year history. Those who try to trivialize this or sugar-coat Islam’s past are ignorant or simply lying. When we start looking at the teachings of the Koran, we begin to understand the reasons behind Islam’s many attacks on Europe and other continents in the past. Islam’s relentless effort to gain influence in Europe is part of an ongoing campaign which stretches back more than a millennium.

These are just a few of the factors which outline the numerous problems caused by Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe. Notice also that these factors are not subjective arguments concocted by opponents of Multiculturalism, are verifiable and irrefutable facts.

Yet despise this overwhelming amount of empirical data that completely rejects the sustainability of the utopian multicultural society, despite the unwillingness of Islam to embrace Western values, there are those who have decided to ignore the obvious conclusions and instead ridicule anyone who dares to look at these conclusions in an honest manner, and who warns of the potentially devastating consequences of not paying attention to the empirical data at our disposal.

Because when we analyse these factors in an honest manner, it’s impossible not to notice that we’re heading for disaster. There is no logical way of claiming that the consequences of today’s trends are going to have a positive effect on Europe, nor is there any empirical evidence which would suggest that current trends are somehow going to magically correct themselves. It is actually possible to condense the known factors and put it into a mathematical equation:

Increasing unwanted negative behaviour * Reluctance to intervene * Time = Disaster

Some people deliberately close their eyes to reality and refuse to look at trends in a truthful manner. But their arguments simply don’t stand up to critical scrutiny, as the empirical data completely reject their conclusions. When pushed on these issues the only thing they are capable of is presenting non-empirical arguments which have no basis in reality. They must be pushed repeatedly on these issues until they finally start to see the light.

They are being dishonest when they claim that Norwegians will never become a minority in Norway. The empirical data clearly shows us that this is the case if current trends persist. They are being dishonest when they claim that Islam doesn’t want to rule in Europe. Historical facts and empirical data clearly show us that it does. They are being dishonest when they tell us that Multiculturalism is financially sustainable. The empirical data shows us that it definitely is not.

The truth of the matter is that when we take all the information we have at our disposal and employ scientific research methods in order to examine it properly, it is very clear that we are heading down a path towards turmoil and civil unrest. This knowledge should be treated in the most urgent manner, and it shouldn’t be ridiculed or subjected to any form of censorship. The logical conclusions of this analysis should be listened to, and proper measures should be taken to avert the impending cataclysm.

It’s imperative that the elites in Europe start treating empirical data more seriously and take a good look at their continent’s history. This is essential in order to better understand its future. Only by looking at historical events, examining current trends, studying the Koran and listening to what representatives of Islam are telling us can we avoid being incorporated into the Islamic world.

We have to be alert, and we have to be willing to stand up for our way of life and our freedoms. It’s not necessary to look into a crystal ball to see what the future holds. All we need to do is to take an honest and truthful look around us and the options will start to become very clear.

When core values are challenged and start to shatter

Many things have been said and written about the 22/7 attacks in Norway. The list of social commentators who have accused others of having contributed ideologically to the attacks is extensive. Sadly these purveyors of sanctimonious leftist disingenuousness have failed to draw any meaningful lessons from this horrendous event, which is a real pity as there are valuable lessons to be drawn. Instead of demonizing the right, they would be well advised to do some much needed soul-searching and reflect upon whether there is anything in their own ideology that could have contributed to foment a climate in which such an attack could take place. There is no doubt that the attacks of July 22 have highlighted the left’s ideologically distorted view of reality and that it has confirmed that pure evil exists and that it cannot be tamed or harnessed no matter how much the left would like us to believe otherwise

Hopefully the Norwegian authorities will take this to heart, although it must be very hard for them as it goes against the very core of their ideology, which affirms that evil is a result of environmental factors such as oppression, hatred and unkindness. The Norwegian authorities’ belief in this thesis is so strong that they have mandated that everything in Norway is to be subjected to this established truth. Everything from our penal system which focuses exclusively on rehabilitation rather than punishment, to our immigration policies which aims to westernize third world asylum seekers by way of showering them with compassion and by investing astronomical sums of money in order to lift them up to a decent living standard and to transform them into Norwegians.

Likewise, the authorities refuse to properly punish criminals who commit the most heinous crimes believing that empathy and respect will encourage them into becoming law-abiding and caring citizens. This altruistic mindset has also permeated our foreign policies resulting in Norwegian diplomats initiating talks with terrorist organization such as Hamas believing that the organization’s readiness to engage in terror stems from a perceived oppression perpetrated by the Israeli state. In Norway the authorities believe that Hamas will lay down their arms and become productive peaceful citizens as soon as this perceived oppression is brought to an end.

There is something very disturbing and explicitly effeminate behind such a mentality. The desire to change and mould people are almost exclusively found in women, which is why so many imprisoned mass murderers, paedophiles and rapist regularly receive love-letters and marriage proposals from women on the outside who are convinced that they can save them from themselves. One possible explanation for Norway’s hasty political shift to the far left of the political spectrum in recent years can be explained by the enormous influx of women into the higher echelon of political life or alternatively that their male counterparts have been emasculated and subdued by a heavily feminised society.

The cultural and political elites in Norway were stunned when Behring Breivik went on his deadly rampage last July and now they act like a bewildered rich kid who has been brutally assaulted and had his money taken away by a poor kid he thought was a friend. The authorities can’t for the life of them comprehend why someone they treated with such benevolence and reverence would wish to inflict such terrible harm upon them and they probably never will.  But at least some people on the left have started to see the light. People who would automatically call for treatment and rehabilitation of criminals pre 22/7 now talk candidly about the insufficiency of the Norwegian penal codes which will only hand down a 21 year prison sentence to someone who has slaughtered 77 people. Maybe they are beginning to realize that in a just and fair society the act of killing an innocent person should always be treated in the strictest manner possible regardless whether it happens in a terrorist attack or not, and regardless of the number of victims. Maybe it has finally started to dawn upon them that rehabilitation isn’t necessarily a punishment fit for the crime.

The Norwegian wannabe Jihadist was given every opportunity to become a law-abiding and productive citizen. He was given a good elementary education and he was given the opportunity to attend university virtually free of charge. He was given free healthcare and was protected by a large safety net in the form of very generous welfare system that would scoop him up if he was somehow unable to secure a job or generate a steady income. The authorities in Norway went to great lengths to coax him and others like him to do something meaningful with their lives, but still he chose to turn upon them and perpetrated an almost unspeakable act. Now the authorities are scratching their heads unable to grasp that someone from their own flock could treat them with such utter contempt and sheer brutality.

Perhaps it would have been easier for them to accept the gravity of it all if Breivik hadn’t blown up the government building in Oslo and had he only killed a handful of people on Utoya Island instead of the 69 that he executed there in cold blood. And maybe it would have been easier for them if he had expressed some remorse for his actions instead of bragging about it. If that had been the case then maybe just maybe they would have handed him the standard 10-14 year rehabilitation sentence to be served in a nice cushy Norwegian prison and let him return to society afterwards as a free man. The fact that he decided to deal such a decisive blow to the official policy of multiculturalism must have been very hard for them to swallow considering that multiculturalism is the Holy Grail of the political left in Norway and nothing absolutely nothing can be allowed to harm or jeopardize its position.

But then again who knows, maybe this incident will prompt the Norwegian authorities to finally re-evaluate their views on the need to confront evil and deal with it in an appropriate manner, but then again maybe not. Maybe they will continue down the same path and keep on ignoring reality and continue to gaze out at the world through the prism of their political correct and warped ideology,

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.