The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

I hadn't particularly wanted to focus anything in particular on Breivik's trial, as I felt it would be covered extensively in the media and by various counter-jihad freedom fighter blogs.  But it seems they are giving it little coverage.  I guess that they are wanting to keep a low profile.  So, I will start to post some of the interesting things that are in the corners of this trial, and which the media will probably ignore.  This will not necessarily be a chronological account - I'll just post things here as I see them, which may mean the chronology will be less than linear.

The first thins is an interview with the leader of the Norwegian Defence League, who has been called to give evidence.  As he says he has never had contact with Breivik, and there is no evidence that Breivik was ever "a member" of the NDL, one has to wonder what on earth his testimony would prove.  Even if the opposite was true, it would not mean that this man or the NDL has responsibility for Breivik's actions -- Anwar al Awlaki was considered responsible for telling muslims to go and kill people.  The leader of the NDL brings out other interesting issues, like why is the Coward of Utoya island not on the list of witnesses?  The Coward of Utoya Island was there on the day when the shooting happened.  Read the details here, and ask yourself whether or not this Coward is a far more pertinent witness:

So the Coward, with years of experience in being questioned, is not going to be interrogated in court, yet ordinary people who had nothing to do with Breivik are going to get the full glare of the media machine.

The questions are italiicised. Please complain if it is still not clear who is saying what. 

You are summoned as a witness in the trial against Anders Breivik. Do you have any idea about why you’r called for? Did you have any contact with him at all?

“Until 23/7 (the day after terrorist attacks), I had never heard his name, I have never had any contact with him. Thus, I’am very surprised that he summon me as a witness in this case and I mean it is ridiculous that Norwegian law allows this. It makes it a mystery to me why I was summoned as a witness.

I fear that our opinion will be misused by the press and media so that we are portrayed as minded with a terrorist, and this in turn will be used in an attempt to silence the critics of Islam. The first day of the trial already, the press questioned if critics of Islam should be banned! This is the worst possible solution.
This will definitely be the last nail in the coffin for freedom of expression in Norway. We will never stop criticism of Islam. It would mean that the rest of the population loses the ability to listen to us... In addition, we, Islam critics, lose the ability to detect people who want violence as a solution”.

Blitz's-member and leftwing professional demonstrator Stein Lillevolden is called as a witness too; it is possible that “Blitz” may have connection to the motivation of Breivik, because of the fact that NDL was infiltrated by Blitz-members before the organization was completely restructured and Lena Andreassen and Blitz’ infiltrators were caught and thrown by EDL?

“I cannot answer what contact Blitz, SOS Racism and others, trying to "hijack" NDL (feb2011 to April 2011)…had with the terrorist, but that he summoned Lillevolden as a witness could indicate that he ( the terrorist) has a thought behind it, and a goal. It could been fun to see how many emails “SOS Racism” actually wrote to the terrorist in order to create the livelihood of the organization's fraud ... and last but not least; to see what the subject was. Remember that the organization “Serve The People” are the owners of “SOS Racism”, and they are working for an armed revolution in Norway…”

Has Breivik ever been a member of NDL after that Lena Andreassen steered the ship straight into the iceberg?

“In police interrogations (with the terrorist) the Police confirms that he was never a member of the NDL. This is in line with what NDL has claimed all the time. The fact that the previous leader (Lena Andreassen) has maintained this is probably due to several things. First, it involves a confusion between two nearly identical profiles on Facebook. One called "Sigurd Jordsalfar" and the other who called himself "Sigurd Jordsalfare". The latter is the terrorist and has NEVER been associated with NDL.

Moreover, the media's intense hunting for scapegoats is one of the reasons why the terrorist is linked to the NDL (by the press), and we have repeatedly pointed out that the terrorist was NOT a member of the NDL! The problem is that the media is not interested in telling the truth.

I would like to add that I NEVER said that the terrorist was a member with us. This is something the media have invented! What I have said is that I cannot rule out that he was a member during the period “SOS Racism” did coup NDL. Now when it is known that he was NOT a member of the NDL, I wonder if the press will render this fact during, or after the trial….”

What will you say to Breivik if you get a chance to a direct appeal to him?

“I have no desire to say anything to him, I expect that my testimony will show that I despise his actions, and what he did cannont be justified, under NO circumstances!”

Do you think Islam-critical persons are called to testify, only to be accused of both defender and prosecutor as accomplices in Breivik's insane actions on Utøya and in Oslo?

“I believe that the Norwegian people will distinguish between us, who want to use freedom of expression, information and democratic means to create a discussion about the increasing adaptation to the ideology of Islam, - and the terrorists, - to which he belongs! His methods are just as bad as the Islamists themselves uses, namely terror and fear. And I know of NO serious critics of Islam in any way supporting his actions. To accuse us of being accomplices is a direct insult, an insult on a par with terrorist ideas. He argues that he HAD to stop the Labor progress.

For the politicians to say we should be banned because we are fellows in crime must be another way of saying that they are afraid of an open and informative debate on the matter.”

What is your opinion about being summoned as a witness, while Eskil Pedersen who actually was on Utøya during the killing and escaped by ferry, is not summoned?

“I am amazed to the witness list in the whole and cannot believe that our legal system allows a terrorist to call whoever he wants. I have contacted various agencies to avoid having to testify because I feel I have nothing to contribute, and cannot see anything positive by witness in this case. I had however expected that Eksild Pedersen was called as a witness, if only to illustrate what he experienced at Utøya and that he would give an explanation as to why he not ordered the ferry back to rescue more helpless people, who were abandoned on the island.

In addition I had hoped he would explain why the radio communications was broken and why they deliberately did not picked up helpless people in the water.
As I see it this is of great public interest and as such it should have been examined, especially as the AUF leader now come forward and insist that he was the main target, despite the fact that the terrorist all along have claimed that Harlem Brundtland was the target. Is this something the terrorist have said to scare the AUF leader even more, or does it mean that we cannot trust any of the so-called plans of the terrorist?”

Prior to 22.7; had you heard about Breivik?

“NO, I'd never heard his name or had any contact with any of his many fake profiles. Nor no one I know had heard of him before 22/7!”

Do you, as Breivik, believe that the Islamization of Norway has gone too far? If so, why?

“The terrorist and I have totally different view regarding the solution concerning the Islamization of Norway and the rest of the West. It is impossible to avoid that we share certain points. This because his manifesto consists of cut-and-paste from various bloggers previous manifest.

Even the police and PC (Political Correct) politicians agree in parts of the manifest if it is split up into small enough topics. Primarily we disagree in the solution because I want to use free speech as a tool to inform what's happening. The way it develops in Norway, we should take the issue seriously because the muslims they (security service) refere to as extremists today, are in increasing numbers!

The difference between Norway and some other countries is the population is tha it should not be a large number of immigrants before the Islamist groups is considered as large. There are already major extremist groups seeking to impose sharia in Norway. As known; Sharia is a totalitarian and oppressive law.

When looking at Sharia law, it is frightening that Norway will equate this ideology Islam with Christianity in the Constitution. It is completely wrong to equate an ideology that fights against gender equality, freedom, democracy and all the other rights we see as a matter of course in Norway. Our politicians will introduce a law that will make it a criminal offense to criticize oppression and terrorism in this country.”

On your opinion; is the danger of another terrorist attack in Norway the most from a new Breivik, or from a crazed Islamist?

“Both me, other critics of Islam, PST, and a number of others believe that the threat level in Norway is unchanged, which means that what is referred to as extreme Islamists represent the largest threat in and to Norway. We look at developments in networks, and in fact we see that the number of "extreme" Islamists develops in an alarming speed. I wonder when the media will focus on these groups...
I fear however that the attitude of society today against Islam's critics may create more immigrants that intervenes to violence to focus on Islamization. We clearly see that's happening.”

Is Breivik's greeting in the courtroom a Nazi salute, as the media claims, or is it something he has invented for his imaginary army, where he's sort of commander?

“The mentioned greeting he performed in court is probably another fantasy he has come up with. I am sure that if he had been asked what the greeting means, he would have had an explanation problem. That the media regards this as a right-wing attitude is just as stupid as the greeting. I will make a cautious assumption of what he means by this greeting; it could be that he has done this because of love for his country and thus feel he is unjust accused. This is of course reprehensible! The man should be put in a cell and remain there! Such people should not be let loose again and should never be granted leave from prison.”

Is Breivik crazy?

“YES! I personally believe that a person who commits such an act must be crazy, he might not be crazy in legal sense as he have been planning this for many years, according to him selves. But there is little or no doubt that he is NOT normal! That said, I am amazed that he is addressed as unaccountable as the latest report claims he is sane.”

Visninger: 366

Svar til denne diskusjonen

Natalie Rothschild : It is'nt only Breivik whose on trial in Oslo :

There's plenty of journalists and "experts" at Searchlight, HNH, UAF etc. who are going to look even more stupid and partisan now.

Anders Behring Breivik denies contact with EDL

Anders Behring Breivik has denied having contact with the English Defence League, the anti-Islamic network formed in Britain in 2009.

Giving evidence on the fifth day of his 10-week trial for killing 77 people in Norway last summer, the 33-year-old admitted he had posted on internet forums linked to the EDL and had traded messages with an EDL member on one of them. But, he insisted: "I have never had contact with the English Defence League."

He told the court that the EDL was fundamentally different from the Knights Templar (KT), the anti-immigration network of "militant nationalists" to which he professes to belong. He said: "The EDL is an anti-violent organisation supporting democracy and [opposing] Sharia and Islamisation and they have nothing to do with KT at all. You cannot even compare them."

Questioned by his own lawyers about how he was able to carry out the attacks, Breivik described a "meditation" technique he had developed which mixed "Christian prayer" and Japanese "Bushido warrior codex" practised by Samurai fighters.

Breivik insisted on Friday he was a "nice person" capable of empathising with those whose lives he had ruined, but that he had chosen not to as a self-preservation technique. "In many ways it is a protection mechanism," he said. "First of all, if you are going to be capable of executing such a bloody and horrendous operation you need to work on your mind, your psyche, for years. We have seen from military traditions you cannot send an unprepared person into war."

Asked how he was able to talk about the atrocities in such an impassive manner, Breivik said he had learned to rely on "technical, de-emotionalised language" — "if I was going to use normalised language it would not have been possible" to go through police interviews and the trial. "People say: 'He must be a monster, he cannot be from this planet, he must have no emotions and empathy left', but this has to do with preparing and training."

Breivik claimed he was "quite normal up until 2006 when I started training". Those who knew him saw him as "a nice person, a sympathetic person who is quite caring to friends".

He added: "Under normal circumstances I am a very nice person. An example is a funeral that I went to, when my best friend Peter's brother died. I felt that was the saddest day I have ever experienced in my life. I believe I was the one who cried the most, the hardest, during that funeral."

The self-styled Knight Templar claimed he had a good relationship with his family, particularly his sister, who lives in Los Angeles, and his retired mother, with whom he lived for the five years leading up to the attacks. He told the court he would urge his mother to find a hobby, but that she would tell him: "You're my hobby". She has been called by the prosecution to give evidence but has been excused on medical grounds.

Breivik claimed he carried out the attacks out of love: "My love to my ethnic group, my people, my country, is stronger than my love for myself." He was not a narcissist because "a narcissist would never sacrifice himself for anything or anybody".

Breivik said he was fighting against anti-European racism carried out by "the Norwegian media and the Marxist elites". He said: "I am not a racist. I am an anti-racist."

He objected to the "feminisation" of Norway, which he said was imported from the Soviet Union by the Norwegian Labour party after the second world war. "Suddenly boys are supposed to start knitting and doing crochet and cooking," he complained, saying that traditional gender role models were reversed when girls were learning about DIY.

Asked what comprised the Norwegian culture which he killed to protect, Breivik said: "Everything in Norway, ranging from door handles, patterns, beer brands, contributes to our way of being … everything is culture, everything that surrounds us. The way we speak, act, school discipline, politeness, the way we address each other."

On Friday afternoon the prosecution was due to begin questioning Breivik about how he prepared for and carried out the gun attack which left 69 dead on the island of Utøya.

This is a very good analysis by Fjordman, found over at Gates of Vienna.  One can't expect such levels of analysis from the so-called "professional" journalists.

The Trial of Anders Behring Breivik: Week One
by Fjordman

The first week of the trial against the confessed mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has been completed in Oslo. The way it has been carried out has intrigued visiting foreign journalists in both positive and negative ways. A representative of the television news channel CNN was impressed that Norwegians take “pride in the fact they are a society who will respect Breivik’s human rights, even when he showed no respect for the lives of others.”

Many are shocked to find out, though, that the maximum penalty one can get in Norway for any crime is 21 years in prison. That’s in total, not per murder, although there are admittedly mechanisms in place for keeping a person locked up indefinitely if he still poses a threat to society.

If Breivik is judged to be sane he will thus get just a few months in a comfortable jail for each of the 77 murders he committed. Is that a sign of a society that values human life, or is it a sign of a society putting the rights of criminals above those of their victims?

Friday April 20th was the worst day so far. That day the terrorist described inhorrifying detail and with shocking indifference the dozens of individual murders he committed during his shooting spree on the island of Utøya outside Oslo. Yet he had cried publicly only a couple of days earlier when the court showed his own rather silly and unprofessional propaganda movie.

The political commentator John Olav Egeland said that Geir Lippestad and the other defense lawyers worked hard in court to make Breivik appear as rational as possible. The purpose of this was to have him declared sane, as well as “to spread the responsibility for the actions Breivik has done.”

I finished reading his manifesto a week before the trial began. I was struck by how much he has quoted the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and how little focus on this has been appeared in the mass media — as opposed to the fact that he cites some Islam-critical writers.

Calling Breivik “the Wikipedia terrorist” is perhaps an exaggeration, but he certainly uses this source very extensively, from discussing weapons and body armor, to the nuclear reactors he fantasizes about blowing up. He admitted during the trial that the English language version of Wikipedia has been his main source of education. It has probably shaped his strange and imprecise political vocabulary, too. For example, he employs the term “national anarchists,” which is not commonly used in major publications.

Breivik in his long statement in court, Breivik quoted in a slightly modified version the American President John F. Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” This was also highlighted in his 1518 page so-called manifesto, in which he quoted another former US President, Thomas Jefferson, that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” These quotes are more militant than anything ever written by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, Melanie Phillips, or myself.

On page 1120, ABB cites the American Declaration of Independence from 1776 in favor of his views. This document was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson. He mentions the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to bear arms, and thereafter refers to Mahatma Gandhi and the quote “Disobedience of the law of an evil state is therefore a duty.”

The Western mass media have widely portrayed those quoted in Breivik’s manifesto — against their will — as dangerous right-wing extremists. Do these alarming extremists include Thomas Jefferson and Gandhi?

On page 1164 Breivik quotes the Marxist leader Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for half a century, as stating that “I began the revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 individuals with absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and a plan of action.” Mr. Castro represents a totalitarian ideology, and although he is revolutionary Socialist, he has not been blamed for inspiring Breivik.

Much has been written about Breivik’s alleged ties to the English Defence League. The truth is that the EDL are quite marginal in Breivik’s manifesto. In the single longest mention he makes of them, on page 1436, he specifically denounces them as being a bunch of useless, non-violent sissies. He has repeated this view in court, but many notoriously dishonest journalists couldn’t care less about the facts and keep repeating these false allegations.

On page 1111, the author in his manifesto stresses the importance of finding “a nationalistic oriented (patriotic) lawyer,” not a person representing the ruling regime. If so, why did Breivik himself choose defense lawyer Geir Lippestad, who is an active member of the ruling Labor Party and was initially reluctant to take the case?

On page 1263 he writes that “Currently, 99,9% of individuals involved in the European resistance movements have never done anything illegal and will and should continue to operate within the law.” So how does he expect to win sympathy from these people, which he hopes he will get, by committing such hideous atrocities?

In a striking number of cases Breivik doesn’t make logical sense even when read on his own terms. In general, he comes off as logically incoherent, exceptionally self-centered and seemingly devoid of any conscience.

Anders Behring Breivik repeatedly stresses that he is against “racism,” yet later in the manifesto he suddenly decides that race does matter after all. This is just one of the many and sometimes large logical inconsistencies to be found throughout this puzzling text. His writings must therefore be taken with a grain of salt. Breivik is an uneducated poseur with a God complex, not a serious or complex thinker, and he should be treated accordingly.

Jan Oskar Engene, an Associate Professor in Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen specializing in terrorism, cautions against attempts made by commentators to reconstruct an elaborate ideology behind the terrorist’s acts. It’s not evident that Breivik the high-school dropout espouses any coherent political ideology.

Breivik is the anti-Nazi who admires neo-Nazis, the anti-Marxist who admires Marxist revolutionaries, the anti-Islamist who openly admires and emulates Islamic Jihadist terrorists, the non-religious person who thinks he will be canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church for murdering unarmed teenagers, a “perfect knight” who calls his sister a slut, and a modest man who believes that his candy-eating habits are of geopolitical importance.

Breivik is consistently inconsistent, or very nearly so. He contradicts himself so frequently that it’s hard to keep track of his basic ideas, if he has any at all apart from glorifying his own person through murder. One of the few ideas he is consistent about is that he admires the mentality and methods of Islamic Jihadist terrorists, from potential suicide attacks to their propaganda and the idea of posting videos of beheadings on the Internet.

ABB has stressed multiple times in very clear words that he wants to emulate the Islamic terror network al-Qaida, which he sees as a successful revolutionary organization and a blueprint for a similar, European version. On page 1367, the manifesto cites Mohammed that “War is deceit.” He discusses the practice oftaqiyya (sacred lying) and notes that Muslims are “masters of deception.”

Breivik admires these Islamic traits, as well as the Marxist talent for organization. He drew on methods similar to the taqiyya practices of lies and dissimulation employed by Jihadist terrorists such as Mohammed Atta in order to remain undetected while planning his terror attacks.

He has learned a great deal from Muslims on how to stage deadly attacks in order to attract media attention. Breivik doesn’t hide this inspiration, either. On pages 1074-1075 of his manifesto/compendium, he explicitly writes about “Learning from the Muslims,” especially when it comes to “martyrs” and the treatment of these.

This connection is not at all marginal but has been repeatedly emphasized by Breivik himself, in his manifesto as well as during police interrogation and talks with psychiatrists. Muslim Holy Warriors and so-called martyrs derive their inspiration from the Koran, the hadith and other Islamic texts describing the Sunna or personal example of Mohammed and his early companions. Given that Breivik betrays great admiration for Muslim militants, and partly models himself after their behavior, this implies that one of his most important indirect inspirations is actually the Koran and other Islamic texts. Yet few mainstream journalists have highlighted this connection.

Anders Behring Breivik stated in court during the second day of the trial that it was important for the conflict in the long run to provoke a “witch-hunt” now. Mette Yvonne Larsen, one of the lawyers representing survivors and victim’s families, asked Breivik directly about who had inspired him for the terror attacks of 22/7. He replied that he had learned his methodology from al-Qaida and had drawn ideological inspiration from “all authors who support the use of violence.” He repeated that he wanted to provoke a witch-hunt against moderate conservatives in order to increase repression, polarization and radicalization. He considers this strategy to have proven very successful, in light of how many conservatives and Islam-critics have been treated afterwards.

Lawyer Frode Elgesem then introduced me (Fjordman) as a possible source of inspiration. Breivik replied that he is very different from people like me, and that “it’s ridiculous to conduct a witch-hunt against a moderate, non-violent democrat such as Fjordman who doesn’t even support violence.” It didn’t seem to strike him as odd that just a few minutes earlier he himself stated that he committed his atrocities specifically with the intention of having the political establishment and mass media initiate a witch-hunt against moderate, non-violent democrats.

In response to this, the outspoken Australian newspaper columnist, radio commentator and television host Andrew Bolt labeled certain members of the Western press “Breivik’s useful idiots,” since they have been conducting the very witch-hunt against conservatives that he wanted to trigger: “What does it say of those who exploited Breivik’s crime to pursue an ideological vendetta that they have followed precisely the script of a lunatic?”

Daniel Pipes is an American author and political commentator, the founder of the Middle East Forum and editor of its Middle East Quarterly journal, the son of Polish Jewish refugees with a PhD from Harvard University. Pipes published some very insightful comments just five days after the terror attacks where he noted that the damage Breivik did to the Counterjihad may well have been purposeful:

Daniel Pipes noted: “Beyond massacring innocent Norwegians, Behring Breivik damaged conservatism, the counterjihad, and (in particular) those authors he cited in his writings, including myself. A close reading of his manifesto suggests this may have been purposeful,” to undermine peaceful alternatives. Pipes concluded that “Breivik hopes to undermine anyone he perceives as obstructing his dreamed-for revolution. Temporarily, at least, he has succeeded.”

Breivik, in a highly revealing quote on page 1399 of his manifesto, mentions that he had some limited low-level participation in the right-wing Progress Party (FrP) in Oslo. He correctly anticipated that this would be used to discredit the party after his attacks and derived great satisfaction from this thought. He may be at least partially insane, but there is clearly a cold, cynical and manipulating aspect to him, too. Given the fact that he drags even his family and closest friends through the mud by implicating them by name, there is a strong possibility that Breivik deliberately wanted to hurt all those who were mentioned in his manifesto, one way or the other.

The historian Obernt Oftestad stated in an interview that the grief after Breivik’s atrocities has been cynically exploited by Multiculturalists and left-wing ideologues to shame and harass their critics into submission. In his opinion, this betrays a dangerous totalitarian mentality. In a lecture given before his retirement in February 2012, Oftestad warned that after July 22, a “witch-hunt” was undertaken against those who had voiced well-founded criticism of the official integration policies and/or Islam. This is meant metaphorically. Critics were not killed, but the underlying impulses of exorcism against evil thoughts as well as evil people were nonetheless related.

The term “witch-hunt” is harsh, but has also been used by the sociologist and artistKjetil Rolness, who is hardly a conservative. Even respectable figures such as Per Edgar Kokkvold, the long-time secretary-general of the Norwegian Press Association, has been accused by public figures such as the Socialist writer DagHerbjørnsrud of contributing to a climate of Islamophobic hate that allegedly created Breivik.

The American author Bruce Bawer has lived in Oslo for more than a decade. As he points out, criticizing Islam is gradually becoming a punishable offense in several European countries. Following Breivik’s rampage, many high-profile Leftist activists and writers stepped forward to claim that critics of Islam shared responsibility for his crimes. In February 2012 he published an essay in the business daily The Wall Street Journal, the largest newspaper in the USA with separate Asian and European versions, where he warned against this trend:

Anthropologist Runar Døving agreed, declaring flatly, in a Sept. 2 interview with the Norwegian weekly Morgenbladet, that criticism of Islam should be censored. Mr. Døving admitted that his view of the public square was ‘authoritarian’ — the expression of certain ideas, he said, should simply not be allowed — and that he was ‘entirely in favor of what many people are now describing as a witch hunt,’ because ‘there needs to be an investigation of what was written before July 22’ so that we can ‘see the connection between words and actions.’ Indeed, a witch hunt is under way in Norway.” In the name of tolerance and social harmony, powerful members of the left-wing intelligentsia are seeking to silence critics by linking them to mass murder. In Bawer’s view, “This campaign has been carried out on a scale, and with an intensity, that is profoundly unsettling.”

It is hard to tell whether or not Breivik is insane. Perhaps one of the reasons why there are two contradictory psychiatric reports — one concluding that he is insane and suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, the other that he is a psychopath with a narcissistic personality disorder who can be held criminally accountable for his actions — is that he straddles the boundaries between irrational madness and the calculated evil displayed in his attacks.

As a traditionalist, I believe in the best aspects of European traditions, including that of personal responsibility. The responsibility for his terror attacks lies squarely with Breivik, and with Breivik alone. The triggers can be found in his psyche, his narcissism, and his total disregard for other human beings. These form a toxic combination within a delusional thought universe where he is a “perfect knight” and a leader of an imaginary pan-European terror network.

It is nevertheless true that a mentally unbalanced person living in a fantasy world may be affected by events in the real world. The repressed frustration caused by aggressive Islamic inroads and the largest migration waves in human history can feed an already existing paranoia in certain individuals. The brutality of Islamic terror groups can trigger a desire to emulate in a man who lacks empathy and has a morbid fascination with violence.

Western governments have for decades promoted open-border policies of mass immigration. They have aggressively sought to marginalize, harass or silence those who questioned the wisdom of such policies. As a result, millions of people throughout the Western world today feel like aliens in their own cities, and disenfranchised by a dysfunctional political system that they no longer believe takes care of their long-term interests. This growing reservoir of often justified anger was something Breivik’s twisted mind could tap into. The Western political, academic and media elites facilitated the rise of European frustration and resentment that may have contributed to radicalizing Breivik. He’s their Multicultural Frankenstein monster, but after having laid the fertile basis for such currents they washed their hands of the matter and perversely blamed their critics for their own mistakes.

Given the huge challenges facing Western nations due to the unprecedented scale of modern mass migration, it is remarkable how patient most Europeans have been for so long. Millions of them are now trying to organize themselves and make their voices heard within the confines of a democratic system. In this situation it is very unwise for Western leaders to try to suppress those who express their legitimate concerns in non-violent ways.

This remark in particular put me in mind of Mohammed and the Koran: "In a striking number of cases Breivik doesn’t make logical sense even when read on his own terms. In general, he comes off as logically incoherent, exceptionally self-centered and seemingly devoid of any conscience."

Anders Breivik moved to tears by his own propaganda movie:

Ken Livingstone moved to tears by his own propaganda movie:

What is it with maudlin ego-maniacs? 

Ah the famous "Knights Templar" - Those who brought the "holy grail" back from Jerusalem to England, then to Scotland... then to France... ;)  I guess King Robert "the Bruce" has some explaining to do. lol 

Alan Lake said:

While I do agree with some of the things he said, I disagree with others.

I don't have time now to go through it all but pointing out racial differences for example, is not proof of racism. There are many things that some races can do better than others, and this is not racism, but a biological truth pertaining to the Human genetic make up. So "Fjordman" discusses certain things with a certain degree of sheer ignorance, and claims they are "inconsistencies, discrepancies or contradictions" when the truth is his own failure to grasp certain issues.

Besides, I do not like his way of thinking. He assumes far too much for his own good.

My two cents. x

Joe said:

This is a very good analysis by Fjordman, found over at Gates of Vienna.  One can't expect such levels of analysis from the so-called "professional" journalists.

The ex-muslim Raymond Ibrahim draws out the jihadi influence on Breivik even better than Fjordman.

The Jihadist Roots of the Norway Massacre

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPage Magazine
April 25, 2012

Anders Breivik, who went on a shooting spree in Norway last year, killing some 70 people, recently confessed his inspiration: al-Qaeda, the jihadists par excellence of the modern world.

According to AFP, "The gunman behind the Norway massacres said he was inspired by al-Qaida as he took the stand Tuesday [4/17] at his trial…. he described himself as a 'militant nationalist' and, using the pronoun 'we' to suggest he was part of a larger group, added: 'We have drawn from al-Qaida and militant Islamists. You can see al-Qaida as the most successful militant group in the world.'"

Not only was he "inspired" by al-Qaeda, but his very tactics mirrored those of the jihadist organization. According to the AP, Breivik testified "that he had planned to capture and decapitate" the former Norwegian Prime Minister, with the plan "to film the beheading and post the video on the Internet," adding that "he was inspired by al-Qaida's use of decapitation," which he described "as a very powerful psychological weapon."

In a globalized world where Islam has the lion's share of acts of terrorism—where nonstop images of jihadists killing and beheading people have metastasized in the media, and thus in the mind of the average person—discovering that al-Qaeda is Breivik's source of inspiration is, of course, not surprising.

But there is a more profound point here: Breivik is not the first non-Muslim to be "inspired" by Muslim notions; the Crusaders, for example, lived in an atmosphere thoroughly permeated and influenced by Islamic jihad, so much so that the very idea of Christian "holy war"—the use of violence and conquest in the name of Christianity—finds its ideological origins in jihad.

Emmet Scott, for instance, author of the new book Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited writes:

[I]n addition to some commentaries upon Aristotle, and a few scientific and technological concepts (which were not "Arab" inventions at all) Islam was to communicate to Europe a whole host of ideas and attitudes that were far from being enlightened. Most obviously, the concept of "holy war" [or jihad], which Europe adopted (admittedly somewhat reluctantly) in the eleventh century, was entirely an Islamic innovation (p. xx).

Earlier, historian Bernard Lewis wrote,

Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation…. [F]orgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas … clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad, and are precursors of the Western Christian Crusade.

For all that, Islamic ideologies did not pervert the foundations of Christianity. Lewis continues:

But unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory.… The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule.… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.

The point here is that the earliest manifestations of the sort of terrorism initiated by Breivik are Islamic in origin. For instance, the medieval Hashashin—the archetypal terrorists who gave us the word "assassin"—were a Muslim sect that pioneered the use of fear, murder, and terror for political gain as early as the 11thcentury.

Even so, the media has inclined to focus on Breivik's fascination with Christian historical groups like the Knights Templar—without bothering to explain exactly how a military order devoted to protecting Christian pilgrims inspired Breivik to murder innocent Norwegian children. As one historian put it, the original Knights Templar, a "very devout people," would be "horrified" to be associated with Breivik.

Even more ironic, the Knights and Crusaders in general were frequently on the receiving end of the aforementioned Hashashin's terror campaign; that is, far from being inspirations for terrorism, the Knights Templar bore the brunt of one of the earliest manifestations of Islamic terrorism. Even CNN's Fareed Zakariacorrectly opined that in Breivik's distorted worldview, "the Knights Templar resembles nothing so much as al Qaeda."

In short, whereas Breivik's goals may have been anti-Islamic in nature, his actions, those things which we are rightly judged by—in this case, from terrorizing and killing the innocent, to planning video-recordings of beheadings—were jihadist in essence.

Even Breivik's references to the Knights Templar is just another instance of what Shirley Bassey describes as "history repeating".  As the Knights Templars had to become militant in order to stop jihad, so Breivik sees himself adopting the tactics of the islamic terrorists in order to fight them and their enablers in the west.

Meanwhile our "academic" experts have completely failed to understand even the Crusades.  They are simultaneously blinded by their euro-centrism whilst hating that that which they cannot see beyond.  I guess if we were as blind as they, we might hate as they do.

Oh well, it seems that the media should now start interviewing Muslims and Jihadists for "inspiring" Breivik to attack and not the counter-jihadists who are only trying to defend the world from these mass murderers.

They were talking about "games" inspiring Breivik but failing to mention that it was Islam itself. Time to ban Islam, don't you think? 

Maybe Brevik, like so many people who go through the prison system, will end up converting to islam. He could then attribute his killing spree to the need for jihad and the protection of islam.  He would then become an over night hero.

It should be noted that Brevik is determined  to be seen as sane. That is mad in itself. Most people who commit serious crime  claim deminished responsibility, and the state trys to prove they were sane at the time of the crime so they can be prosicuted. This case is the oppersite.  



Yes, this case is special because Breivik has literally sacrificed himself in order to bring awareness of the situation faced by so many of us all over the world. He chose to target the enablers, while we focus on exposing Islam. In reality both are part of the same struggle. There is absolutely no doubt that Breivik is sane. What irritates me the most is every time there is a horrendous crime, people claim to be "insane" and end up being "forgiven" for the crimes. Look at that Indian guy who paid a taxi driver to murder his wife in South Africa during their honeymoon. The man was gay. He did not want to marry his wife. And because he could not find a way out of this sham marriage without bringing his family into disrepute, he paid someone to murder her. Now he can't face trial in South Africa because:

a) He is insane
b) He is depressed
c) he is suffering some nervous breakdown.  Oh please!! The man was not mad, insane, depressed or suffering any breakdowns when he calculatingly paid someone to murder his wife. So this "insanity" business is mostly a con on grounds on diminished responsibility.

Breivik shouldn't be wasting his time trying to prove he is sane, and it's not his duty either. They should be the ones able to prove that Breivik is insane. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.  He cannot prove a negative. No one can. How mentally defficient are these people? And these are the irrationals who are conducting a "trial" of murder? Jeez! G-d help us all. Do you now see what kind of people we have as leaders and "authorities" in our societies? Is it any wonder that the whole moral fabric of our societies have been destroyed?  


Questioned by his own lawyers about how he was able to carry out the attacks, Breivik described a "meditation" technique he had developed which mixed "Christian prayer" and Japanese "Bushido warrior codex" practised by Samurai fighters.

Breivik insisted on Friday he was a "nice person" capable of empathising with those whose lives he had ruined, but that he had chosen not to as a self-preservation technique. "In many ways it is a protection mechanism," he said. "First of all, if you are going to be capable of executing such a bloody and horrendous operation you need to work on your mind, your psyche, for years. We have seen from military traditions you cannot send an unprepared person into war."


Why would an "insane" or "terrorist" want to do meditation in order to work himself up to a state where he could find the strength and stomach to kill? I don't think Muhammad or Bin Laden or any filthy sub-human Jihadi feels the need to meditate to achieve this degree of "aloofness" or lack of sensitivity in order to kill. They just go and kill. They just go and behead people as if this pretty normal to them, while Breivik has to work himself up to explode a bomb and kill a few people.

I know well what he is talking about. Killing is easy, the hard part is living with it afterwards, and this is why Breivik cannot allow himself to sympathize with the victims of his attacks no matter how much he wishes to. He cannot and does not want to regret his actions, as in his mind they had a purpose. 

I agree with him that you (if you are a sane person) would have to work your mind up if you are going to do something as horrific as that. What I do not understand is how these Jihadis and other Muslims do what they do, i.e. mutilation, beheadings, acid attacks, child rape, female genital mutilation, honor killings, etc (which is by far a lot more horrific than what Breivik did)... as easy as they drink water, and they are never called insane, neither is their sick and fanatical cult criminalized.  Instead WE are called "Islamophobic". 

Why do they say a man who obviously had to take drugs, meditate and think like a Samurai in order to kill is "insane" when sub human beasts from Islam do worse than that on a daily basis and are considered "pious"? 

This is a legacy from insane communists. These enablers are worse than the criminals themselves. 

paul collings sa:

Maybe Brevik, like so many people who go through the prison system, will end up converting to islam. He could then attribute his killing spree to the need for jihad and the protection of islam.  He would then become an over night hero.

It should be noted that Brevik is determined  to be seen as sane. That is mad in itself. Most people who commit serious crime  claim deminished responsibility, and the state trys to prove they were sane at the time of the crime so they can be prosicuted. This case is the oppersite.  

Well spotted, Joe!

Joe said:

Anders Breivik moved to tears by his own propaganda movie:

Ken Livingstone moved to tears by his own propaganda movie:

What is it with maudlin ego-maniacs? 


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service