Kuffarphobia in Norwayforum - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-29T12:55:12Zhttp://4freedoms.com/group/norway/forum?feed=yes&xn_auth=noUnwanted immigration.tag:4freedoms.com,2016-04-02:3766518:Topic:1772452016-04-02T14:05:31.638ZPhilip Smeetonhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PhilipSmeeton
<p><span>This is a translation of an article written by Helge Lurås, leader of The Centre for International and Strategic Analysis, called ”Innvandringsevangeliet går mot slutten” -The Immigration Gospel Is Ending. 29.03.2016.…</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>This is a translation of an article written by Helge Lurås, leader of The Centre for International and Strategic Analysis, called ”Innvandringsevangeliet går mot slutten” -The Immigration Gospel Is Ending. 29.03.2016.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/Innvandringsevangeliet-gar-mot-slutten--Helge-Luras-8407705.html">http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/Innvandringsevangeliet-gar-mot-slutten--Helge-Luras-8407705.html</a></span><span> </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>How many non-ethnic-norwegians can we manage to absorb before we are in the same predicament as Sweden and Belgium?</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>“We have to live with terror” said Magnus Randstorp from the Swedish Defense Academy to the newspaper Dagens Næringsliv after the events in Brussels this week. What is important is how we, as victims, “respond to to terror”. “We must stand together” and in no way “couple the stream of refugees into Europe with terror”, says Randstorp.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Alienation and parallel society.</span></p>
<p><span>The accusations in Europe are directed inwards. More than 160 people have died in two terrorist attacks that are tied to persons with residence and citizenship rights in Belgium. We all recognize the names now: Abdelhamid, Omar, Saleh, Najim, Mohammed, Ibrahim, Khalid. Their apartness lies in their names, their skin color and their religion. They and their parents have not been received properly. Immigrants are discriminated, they can’t get jobs, they are not even called in to job interviews. A parallel society has arisen. Ghettos where almost all of the majority population have moved out. In these enclaves there are other values and other identities that dominate. The police, the authorities and the West are enemies. They have other heroes, different conspiracy theories. There is unity, there is a society, but it is not ours.</span></p>
<p><span>There is a parallel society. It is a society,but it is not ours.</span></p>
<p><span>In Norway it is believed to be different. To the state broadcasting medium (NRK) the “police security service” (PST) leader, Benedicte Bjørnland says that Norway does not yet have “the parallel societies that foster extremist islamists that we see out in Europe”. Not yet at least. </span></p>
<p><span>Reality denial by politicians.</span></p>
<p><span>Randstorp and others that provide commentary, keep good company with many politicians, that continue to deny and to avoid pointing out the obvious, that, the terror threat level is a consequence of immigration, including the immigration that has its origins in the asylum system. To be more specific: it can be be coupled to immigration from Muslim countries. The more outsiders that come the more rapid is the growth of parallel societies. </span></p>
<p><span>The terror threat level is directly linked to immigration from Muslim countries.</span></p>
<p><span>Immigration-liberalism has been preached from a script that began with claiming that all immigration was a cultural enrichment for Europe. Facts that gradually began to point out that the opposite was the case, were first denied or downplayed. When this became undeniable the response was that immigration simply couldn’t be stopped. We could not build walls, people would come anyway. Then when it is shown that walls do work, morality is applied, we are told that we have a moral obligation to help and to welcome those that ask for help.</span></p>
<p><span>Populism or common sense?</span></p>
<p><span>The political elite has to wake up and take responsibility otherwise they will be swept aside by those that speak plain truth. Donald Trump seems to have understood this. We can build walls and we can discriminate in our own interest against Muslims.</span></p>
<p><span>In central and eastern Europe they have understood this, they do not want parallel societies. Therefore they refuse to have mass-immigration, especially from Muslim countries. People in Western Europe also see this, Hege Storhaug who describes Islam as a plague, has sold 50000 copies of a book, that the political elite did not manage to silence. The debate on immigration rages on in social media, whilst face-to-face people dare hardly utter a word on the subject not knowing what opinion the other person has. </span></p>
<p><span>Integration and immigration stop.</span></p>
<p><span>It is usual to think that strict immigration restrictions automatically have a negative effect on integration, and to some degree it does. The logic behind a strict immigration politic is that immigration is a problem, something unwanted that has to be limited. It is therefore difficult not to regard those that have already immigrated as a problem. And being seen to be a problem is something other than being regarded as a benefit.</span></p>
<p><span>One mountain safety rule is to turn back before it is too late to do so. This should apply to Norway where these parallel societies are not yet fully developed. Most Norwegians do see immigration as a problem.</span></p>
<p><span>Why then is Norway spared and not Belgium, France and Sweden. Are Norwegians world champions in integration and more open and including? Or have we only experienced immigration for a shorter period and to a lesser degree, while we have had a strong economy and need for workers? And how long can this last?</span></p>
<p><span>Most Norwegians do consider immigration a problem. Most of us do not like the moral consequences of our own selfishness and nationalism, but it is what we are, all of us. Norway is ours, and only the few can be allowed to come here “with us”.</span></p>
<p><span>How many can we accept?</span></p>
<p><span>Immigration has to be limited, faced with the vast numbers that would come if they were allowed to. We must therefore think in numbers, how many each year and in the long run.</span></p>
<p><span>How many non-ethnic Norwegians can we absorb before we get Swedish and Belgian conditions?</span></p>
<p><span>Are some immigrant categories more difficult to integrate than others? And should this have consequences for who is to be let in?</span></p>
<p><span>To what degree must we learn to “live with terror” or increased surveillance, more taboos, more crime, less welfare benefits, and so on. It is a question of taking responsibility rather than the making of excuses and the avoidance of issues.</span></p>
<p><span>I think that folk’s patience is wearing thin. Those that have got us into this situation have to go and to be replaced internally by those that can take control of the situation. Before darker more instinctive forces come into play.</span></p> Norway: Anti-racism head seized on fraud chargestag:4freedoms.com,2014-04-29:3766518:Topic:1472472014-04-29T16:58:25.154ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p><a href="http://www.thelocal.no/20140428/head-of-anti-racism-group-arrested-on-fraud-charges" target="_blank"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thelocal.no/userdata/images/article/w468/3c936e0773e75c595893d28040f7c0d2eb5f38a2461209dfab06c8e506b94f1a.jpg?width=468" width="468"></img></a></p>
<div class="small">Kjell Gunnar Larsen, chief executive of SOS Rasisme, as police raided his organisation's offices in Haugesund in 2012. Photo: Jan Kåre Ness/Scanpix</div>
<h1 id="page_title">Anti-racism head seized on fraud charges</h1>
<div class="clr">Published: 28 Apr 2014 16:52 GMT+02:00</div>
<p class="small">Updated: 28 Apr 2014 16:52…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thelocal.no/20140428/head-of-anti-racism-group-arrested-on-fraud-charges" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.thelocal.no/userdata/images/article/w468/3c936e0773e75c595893d28040f7c0d2eb5f38a2461209dfab06c8e506b94f1a.jpg?width=468" width="468" class="align-left"/></a></p>
<div class="small">Kjell Gunnar Larsen, chief executive of SOS Rasisme, as police raided his organisation's offices in Haugesund in 2012. Photo: Jan Kåre Ness/Scanpix</div>
<h1 id="page_title">Anti-racism head seized on fraud charges</h1>
<div class="clr">Published: 28 Apr 2014 16:52 GMT+02:00</div>
<p class="small">Updated: 28 Apr 2014 16:52 GMT+02:00</p>
<div><strong>Police have arrested the head of a controversial Norwegian antiracism organisation on suspicion of embezzling millions of kroner in public funds given to the organisation over the past decade.</strong></div>
<div>According to Norway's Dagbladet newspaper, police arrested Kjell Gunnar Larsen, the chief executive of the Norway's SOS Racisme, in a raid on his house on Monday morning. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The officers seized electronic equipment, phones, laptops, and large amounts of cash, which they suspect may have been siphoned off the organisation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>"We found a large amount of cash in his home," police attorney Hallvard Bjorndal told Norway's Dagbladet newspaper. "What we can say is that we are talking about a larger amount of cash than what you normally find in a household." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>"We believe that the accused has drained the accounts via withdrawals to the tune of several millions," Bjorndal added. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Larsen has been under investigation by Norwegian police since 2011, when a court ruled that the organisation had inflated its membership lists by a factor of ten to win more financing from state bodies.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The court ordered it must pay back 9,708,501 million kroner of the support that it had received from the National Council for Norwegian Child and Youth Organisations (LNU), over the preceding decade, pushing it to file for bankruptcy in 2013. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Larsen has previously rejected all allegations, with SOS Racism describing the charges as "a witch hunt" on its website. Larsen's bank accounts have already been seized by police, and the organisation's offices were raided in 2012 in a hunt for incriminating evidence. </div>
<div><a href="http://www.thelocal.no/20140428/head-of-anti-racism-group-arrested-on-fraud-charges">http://www.thelocal.no/20140428/head-of-anti-racism-group-arrested-on-fraud-charges</a></div> Was Norwegian Defence League a Honeytrap (or something worse)?tag:4freedoms.com,2013-02-22:3766518:Topic:1191282013-02-22T00:05:56.069ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p><a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-norwegian-defence-league-a-creature-of-the-pst/">http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-norwegian-defence-league-a-creature-of-the-pst/</a></p>
<p></p>
<br />
<h1 class="entry-title">The Norwegian Defence League: A Creature of the PST?</h1>
<div class="entry-meta"><span class="sep">Posted on</span> <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-norwegian-defence-league-a-creature-of-the-pst/" rel="bookmark" title="5:15 pm">February 21, 2013…</a></div>
<p><a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-norwegian-defence-league-a-creature-of-the-pst/">http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-norwegian-defence-league-a-creature-of-the-pst/</a></p>
<p></p>
<br />
<h1 class="entry-title">The Norwegian Defence League: A Creature of the PST?</h1>
<div class="entry-meta"><span class="sep">Posted on</span> <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-norwegian-defence-league-a-creature-of-the-pst/" title="5:15 pm" rel="bookmark">February 21, 2013</a> <span class="by-author"><span class="sep">by</span> <span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="http://gatesofvienna.net/author/Baron/" title="View all posts by Baron Bodissey" rel="author">Baron Bodissey</a></span></span></div>
<br />
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The following article from <a target="_blank" href="http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/02/21/nyheter/innenriks/pst/sos_rasisme/ndl/25850056/"><em>Dagbladet</em></a> reveals that the Norwegian Defence League was created and nurtured by the Norwegian Security Police (PST). During its early days, three of its six leaders were PST agents, and the man who initiated the creation of the NDL was an agent for multiple organizations — he infiltrated the leadership of “anti-racist” and communist organizations as well.</p>
<p>I can’t help but be reminded of the fact that Stalin was a double agent for the Okhrana, the Czar’s secret intelligence service, before the Bolshevik Revolution. The Okhrana thus unwittingly helped engineer the overthrow of the Russian state.</p>
<p>The PST in effect built the NDL, which Anders Behring Breivik later joined. The NDL then allegedly contributed to Mr. Breivik’s radicalization.</p>
<p>So I guess you might say the PST were “Breivik’s mentors”.</p>
<p>Many thanks to our Norwegian correspondent <a target="_blank" href="http://someofmyessays.blogspot.com/">The Observer</a> for the translation:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Spy-coup despite the lack of approval from the PST</strong></p>
<p><strong>Joined forces with those he was supposed to spy on</strong></p>
<p><em>Dagbladet</em> has information that confirms that the PST spy Christian Høibø took the initiative to create the anti-Islamic organization the <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Defence_League">Norwegian Defence League</a> (NDL). Høibø also appointed the leaders of the organization on three separate occasions</p>
<p>The PST spy appointed:</p>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Håvar Krane as the NDL’s first leader</li>
<li>Lena Andreassen as the successor</li>
<li>Recruit Ronny Alte to NDL</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>A planned ploy</strong></p>
<p>The task of building up an enemy organization was performed by the PST spy Høibø in agreement with SOS Rasisme and the Marxist-Maoists in Tjen Folket (Serve the People).</p>
<p>“It was a assignment that he undertook without our knowing,” says Høibø’s case officer in the PST to <em>Dagbladet</em>.</p>
<p>Høibø reported back to the PST on his role in the NDL and he supplied the PST with inside information. The PST never attempted to stop him. He also supplied information to SOS Rasisme and Tjen Folket.</p>
<p>This information has been confirmed by Bard Frantzen, former member of the leadership of SOS Rasisme and Tjen Folket. Frantzen was unaware of Høibø’s status as a PST agent.</p>
<p>“In my opinion this means that the PST established NDL. Høibø built up the NDL in the period when Breivik joined and became radicalized. In that regard it appears that PST helped build the milieu where Breivik found his inspiration prior to executing the attack. That is pretty bad,” says Frantzen.</p>
<p><em>Dagbladet</em> has previously reported that Høibø claims that it was he who excluded Anders Behring Breivik from the NDL.</p>
<p><strong>NDL was founded at Lorry (bar in downtown Oslo)</strong></p>
<p>The establishment of the NDL began at Lorry in 2010. The first meeting was initiated by Høibø. Present at the meeting were the PST agent and two members of SOS Rasisme.</p>
<p>Høibø told Frantzen that the poorly organized NDL Facebook network with approximately 500 members could be built into a functioning organization.</p>
<p>“I was one of those present at Lorry that day. Høibø’s plan was to establish a solid organizational structure, a workable membership register, and organize right-wing demonstrations,” says Frantzen.</p>
<p>“I was negative about the plans, because the methods that Høibø proposed were dangerous and could cause great damage to the anti-racist work.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Asked to step aside</strong></p>
<p>The plan, however, was put into action as several others members of SOS Rasisme supported it, says Franzen.</p>
<p>“It was a plan that he undertook without our initial knowledge. When we eventually found out about it, it was our opinion that he shouldn’t have such a prominent position in an organization like the NDL. We asked him to step aside,” says Høibøs case officer to <em>Dagbladet</em>.</p>
<p>But Høibø didn’t step aside. Instead he remained as the political leader of the NDL. He was not alone.</p>
<p>Three of the six people in the leadership of the NDL were Høibø’s accomplices.</p>
<p><strong>Triple access</strong></p>
<p>An organizational chart made by Høibø shows that Jon Hagen and ‘Sigve Ås’ are positioned alongside him in the top management. Hagen is Høibøs friend and, like Høibø, he also reported to the PST. Sigve Ås is the pseudonym of a prominent representative of SOS Rasisme.</p>
<p>“It became a challenge for us,” says Høibø’s case officer</p>
<p>In essence Høibø had access to current information for the PST in three different camps: he had his feet planted inside the Tjen Folket dominated SOS Rasisme, which meant that he could follow the activities of both Communists and anti-racists. The infiltration of the NDL gave Høibø access to information about the anti-Islamic extremist milieu.</p>
<p>It is also established that PST used Høibø to follow the activities of the communists in the organization Internationale Sosialister (IS).</p>
<p>As a result, on several occasions Høibø had himself established communities and organized events from which he could report back to the PST.</p>
<p><strong>New threat</strong></p>
<p>From the time the infiltration of the Facebook network began in 2010 until the summer of 2011, the NDL evolved itself from being a little-known group of hateful anti-Islamists and neo-Nazis to a new threat for the PST.</p>
<p>The PST was simultaneously fully aware of Høibø’s role as the driving force of the NDL.</p>
<p>In February 2011, the NDL was for the first time mentioned in PST’s annual threat report. The organization received extensive media coverage as a result</p>
<p>In March 2011 PST went on record saying that they feared that the NDL could become a violent organization.</p>
<p>“I feared that such an operation could strengthen the extreme right more than it would weaken it. The possibility that the NDL could evolve into a large and independent unit that we couldn’t control anymore was a real scenario. Today I know that the plan was right,” says Frantzen.</p>
<p><strong>“Wrote NDL speech”</strong></p>
<p>According to the former NDL leader Lena Andreassen and emails that <em>Dagbladet</em> have copies of, it was the PST infiltrator who wrote the speech she delivered during NDL’s controversial demonstration on Kontraskjæret in Oslo on April 9, 2011.</p>
<p>“It was Christian Høibø who wrote and sent me the speech that I held at the demonstration. I found the message of the speech to be quite radical, but I didn’t know quite what to say,” Andreassen previously stated to <em>Dagbladet</em>.</p>
<p>The rally was such a big flop that the leaders of the British EDL removed Andreassen as the NDL leader a few days later.</p>
</blockquote> Breivik Was Not the First Terrorist on Utoya Islandtag:4freedoms.com,2013-02-04:3766518:Topic:1179822013-02-04T12:18:58.943ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>from: <a href="http://tundratabloids.com/2013/01/dr-manfred-gerstenfeld-interviews-ivar-fjeld-about-authors-book-on-utoya-island.html">http://tundratabloids.com/2013/01/dr-manfred-gerstenfeld-interviews-ivar-fjeld-about-authors-book-on-utoya-island.html</a></p>
<p>“On July 22nd 2011, Norwegian fascist terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 youngsters at a camp of the AUF youth wing of Labor – the leading government party – on the island of Utoya. This camp served as a venue to inculcate…</p>
<p>from: <a href="http://tundratabloids.com/2013/01/dr-manfred-gerstenfeld-interviews-ivar-fjeld-about-authors-book-on-utoya-island.html">http://tundratabloids.com/2013/01/dr-manfred-gerstenfeld-interviews-ivar-fjeld-about-authors-book-on-utoya-island.html</a></p>
<p>“On July 22nd 2011, Norwegian fascist terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 youngsters at a camp of the AUF youth wing of Labor – the leading government party – on the island of Utoya. This camp served as a venue to inculcate party ideology into the minds of children from 14 years and up. Later it became known internationally that part of this included promoting anti-Israel sentiments.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Ivar Fjeld is a gentile Norwegian journalist. He was formerly a local leader of the AUF and was media advisor to Labor politician Olaf Akselsen when he was minister of Oil and Energy in 2001. His book The Red and Green Terror Island was released at the beginning of 2013.</strong> It discusses the history of what happened on Utoya Island.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“I was raised in a traditional, secular Norwegian family. Until 2004 when I re-discovered our Christian origins, I was an admirer of Yasser Arafat. We were however, always moderates and never believed that violence should be used as a political tool. At a certain point in 2006, the AUF broke away from its moderate traditions and turned sharply left.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“The AUF owns Utoya Island and its facilities. As a local AUF leader, I participated in this camp in 1986 and 1987. Even at that time there were Palestinian participants. They used drugs and shared them with Norwegian youngsters. We complained about it to then-Labor Youth Secretary General Mr. Stale Dokken, but he and his colleagues preferred to hush it up.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">[<strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">UPDATE</span></strong>: Added</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">“At that time, Jens Stoltenberg, the current Norwegian Prime Minister was head of AUF. He must have been aware that Palestinian ‘guests’ were smoking pot on the island, and offering drugs to 14-15 year old Labor Youth members. In my 2006 book <i id="yui_3_7_2_1_1359578545811_2656">From Atheism to Christian Faith,</i> I mentioned this drug scandal. I gave a copy of my book to Stoltenberg. He sent me a hand written thank you card back. I am not sure whether he ever read the book or not. ]</span></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“In 2007, the AUF began to rent out the facilities on Utoya. As an ideological movement, they should have been selective about to whom they were willing to make the place available. One of the organizations to which it was rented however, was the youth movement of the small Norwegian communist Red party (Rodt). Its members included Leninists, Marxists and Maoists.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“The Red youth movement invited youngsters from the Palestinian Popular Front of Palestine (PFLP) to participate in their camp. The PFLP is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, Canada and the U.K. Money was collected for the PFLP at the camp. I have documents and pictures which prove this.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“The AUF had already entered into a formal educational program with the Fatah Youth from 2006 onward. They called this Palestinian body their ‘sister organization.’ Members of Fatah Youth were regular guests at Utoya camps.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“In 2010 at the Utoya camp, the AUF established ‘the State of Palestine.’ They fenced off an area and set up a separation wall. They gave some youngsters the task of being Border Guards. The General Secretary of the Labor party, Raymond Johansen visited Utoya. He wanted to visit ‘Palestine.’ The guards asked him to show his ‘identity card.’ Within ‘Palestine’ there was a banner which read, ‘Show contempt for the acts of Israel and Free Gaza.’</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“At Utoya’s 2011 camp, Israel was also demonized. This was done by AUF leaders and visiting anti-Israel lecturers.</strong> There was a huge banner calling for the boycott of Israel. There were many countries they could have called to boycott with far more justification, but as usual, they chose Israel. When then-Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere visited Utoya, he spoke out against the boycott, yet was photographed in front of the boycott banner. Stoere said that Israel’s fence should be dismantled, knowing well that this would lead to increased terrorist attacks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“There have been unconfirmed reports that youngsters in Utoya were taught about how Palestinian freedom fighters are trained to handle Israeli soldiers.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“There have been many rumors in Norway about what actually took place at Utoya. I have done detailed research to document the activities of the groups which were invited to the island. I want people to know the facts. <strong>It seems that the line between ‘showing contempt’ for Israelis and the use of violence against innocent civilians inside Israel, is blurred. Summer camps on Utoya have further fueled the already widespread anti-Israel sentiments in Norway.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“Members of the ruling left-center coalition government in Norway have accepted terrorists on Norwegian soil. These people are using violence as a political tool and kill innocent civilians in the framework of their activities. The terrorism and assassinations by these people have not harmed Norwegians. They have taken place mainly in the Middle East and in particular in Israel, targeting Israeli civilians. There is proof that the Prime Minister’s office is well aware and supportive of the welcoming attitude toward the terrorists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>“I can only hope that my book will lead to Norway closing its borders to terrorists of all colors. Then groups who use terror will also be banned from political workshops and ideological summer camps like those we have seen at Utoya. It is a sad testimony for Norway that one had to wait for the horrible Breivik murders in order to learn about the anti-Israeli activities, a mostly unknown part of Utoya’s history.”</strong></p> Academics Speak Out against Lies of Islamic Enablerstag:4freedoms.com,2013-02-04:3766518:Topic:1180712013-02-04T12:07:15.866ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>It's hard to work out if the Renaissance of objectivity that is happening in Norway is the result of Breivik's massacre, or of Alan Lake's series of in-depth interviews on Norwegian TV. This is the 3rd such event I've noticed in Norway in the last month. I'll try and find the others and post them too.</p>
<hr></hr><p><strong>from…</strong></p>
<p>It's hard to work out if the Renaissance of objectivity that is happening in Norway is the result of Breivik's massacre, or of Alan Lake's series of in-depth interviews on Norwegian TV. This is the 3rd such event I've noticed in Norway in the last month. I'll try and find the others and post them too.</p>
<hr/><p><strong>from</strong> <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/spreading-a-romantic-view-of-islam/">http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/spreading-a-romantic-view-of-islam/</a></p>
<p>The following op-ed by Alexandra Irene Larsen is a startling change from the usual fare served up by the Norwegian MSM. It takes a hard look at the radical Left’s love affair with radical Islam, accurately describing the academic currents that have carried today’s fashionable opinions into cultural prominence.</p>
<p>Our Norwegian correspondent <a target="_blank" href="http://someofmyessays.blogspot.com/">The Observer</a>, who translated the piece, includes this introductory note:</p>
<blockquote><p>This is a refreshingly candid and honest criticism of Norwegian social sciences, where empirical data has been replaced by radical ideological theory. Your readers may remember that Mattias Gardell, who is mentioned in this op-ed, appeared as an ‘expert’ witness in the Breivik trial along with (among others) Lars Gule, a former wannabe terrorist who was caught with 750 grams of plastic explosives hidden in his backpack at the airport in Beirut in 1977, which he had intended to use to blow up a target inside Israel.</p>
<p>By the way: Gule is a research fellow at the University College in Oslo, which does strengthen the claims made by Larsen in this op-ed.</p>
<p>The criteria for becoming a professor or lecturer in Norway or Sweden: a background from a radical and violent political organization, or a strong desire to blow up innocent civilians…</p>
<p>Both Gardell and Gule fit the bill.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The translated <a target="_blank" href="http://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/artikkel.php?artid=10119705">op-ed from yesterday’s VG</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Researchers romanticize Islam</b></p>
<p><i>Middle Eastern studies are dominated by former leftists who have worldviews romanticizing totalitarian Islamism.</i></p>
<p><b>By Alexandra Irene Larsen, fellow at the University of Agder, Department of Religion, Philosophy and History</b></p>
<p><b>Fear of addressing issues</b></p>
<p>These researchers have embraced a method of interpreting Islamism and the Middle East in which Third World romanticism and anti-Americanism is used to absolve political extremism and label any form of criticism as “Islamophobia”.</p>
<p>Many of the prejudices that characterize Middle Eastern studies are a direct legacy from Edward Said and his angry book <i>Orientalism</i> from 1978. With his strong support of the Palestinians, Said was incapable of keeping his political and professional work separate. No truths existed; only “narratives”. Facts were reduced to whatever people wanted them to be. One was not supposed to criticize “the other”, and was expected to deconstruct and confront one’s own culture, while others cultures and traditions were to be endorsed and preserved.</p>
<p>This has resulted in a fear of addressing non-Western totalitarian, anti-democratic and repressive undercurrents.</p>
<p><b>Liberation Movements</b></p>
<p>The influence of Said coincided with two other processes. One was the radicalization of the social sciences in the wake of the youth rebellion. The second was the abandonment by many leftists of the activist movement and their return to the universities in the 1980s. They brought with them the left’s post-colonial guilt complex and anti-racism and channeled these into courses like Middle Eastern studies, minority studies and anthropology.</p>
<p>These studies were now meant to serve socialism and the interests of the working class and oppose Western imperialism.</p>
<p>Militant groups in the developing world were not classified as extremists but rather as liberation movements and their use of violence and repression was accepted or at least seen as an understandable response to Western oppression. This is how it became fashionable to defend non-Western extremism, Islamism included, in academia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p><b>Ideologically colored picture</b></p>
<p><img src="http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/antifascistisk.gif" title="Anti-Fascist Action" align="left" border="0" hspace="18" vspace="5"/>The strongest exponent of Said’s teachings in Scandinavia is probably Mattias Gardell, a Swedish theologian with a background from the revolutionary movement Anti-Fascist Action. His book Islamophobia (2010) has gained popularity and has even made it into the curriculum of Islamic studies at the University of Tromsø [city in northern Norway]. And just like Said, Gardell has a clear political agenda. He skims the surface looking for unconnected quotes that coincide with his worldview and he presents these as the essence of Western academia and its public responsibility.</p>
<p>Bjørn Olav Utvik, a professor at the University of Oslo and a former member of AKP-ml (The Workers’ Communist Party — Marxist-Leninists) has helped shape the discipline in Norway with a left-wing political bias.</p>
<p>Utvik has distinguished himself by embellishing events taking place during the Arab Spring. He claims that Islamism modernizes societies, promotes education and encourages political activity, leads to economic development and creates more individual freedom — while in reality it does the exact opposite. He claims that Islamic values differ very little from secular values, which says a whole lot about the ideologically colored picture that Utvik is trying to paint.</p>
<p><b>Spreads romanticized views</b></p>
<p>Utvik believes that Sharia law is non-racist and “more broad-minded” than what Christian Europe used to be. Perhaps that’s why he isn’t too concerned about the Islamization of Egypt under the rule of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Utvik has on numerous occasions argued that the Brotherhood is the equivalent of a Christian conservative revival movement. Meanwhile religious minorities in Egypt are displaced, the legal system is under pressure, sharia law is being praised and Morsi is steering towards an outright dictatorship.</p>
<p>These ideas have been spread to new generations of students and researchers who themselves don’t have a left-wing political background.</p>
<p>Rather than confronting the discipline’s ideological roots, scientists such as Oddbjørn Leirvik, Knut Aukrust, Knut Vikør and others contribute to spread a romantic view of Islamism. “Islamophobia” has replaced “Orientalism” as the shameful blemish of Western academia. And just as with Orientalism, the prosecutors have little empirical data on the prevalence of Islamophobia: it is omnipresent.</p>
<p><b>The threat is being downplayed</b></p>
<p>This is not merely a Norwegian or Scandinavian phenomenon. In his book <i>Ivory Towers on Sand</i>, the author Martin Kramer alleges that U.S. Middle Eastern researchers behave just like Utvik and Gardell. As Islamism was met with mounting suspicion in the West, the researchers in Middle Eastern studies came up with the idea of placing the various Islamist groups in the same category as other “democratizing” movements.</p>
<p>As long as they wanted something other than the existing order, they were labeled “reformers”, and should be accepted and supported.</p>
<p>Thus the threat of the rise of radical Islam is downplayed and almost ridiculed — so it is constructed by the media, experts and bureaucrats who are prejudiced towards Muslims.</p>
<p><b>Empirical data before myths</b></p>
<p>The researchers on Islam are guilty of exactly the same thing that they themselves used to accuse other Western intellectuals of: namely, constructing a story using selective facts, unfounded generalizations and tendentious language to serve a particular political purpose. By actively beautifying reality the discipline has engineered a type of social research that doesn’t convince with its rationality, but rather with its rhetoric.</p>
<p>This is a derailment of the Western academic spirit, with potentially dangerous consequences in the face of an emerging totalitarian Islamism.</p>
<p>It is therefore about time for the discipline to open up, go back to the sources, focus on empirical data rather than myths and become more tolerant of criticism.</p>
</blockquote> Alan Lake: the most frequently cited inspiration in Breveik's manifestotag:4freedoms.com,2012-07-25:3766518:Topic:1083112012-07-25T07:06:57.816ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>Sorry, made a mistake, I don't seem to be listed in there at all. <br></br> Well, better just treat me like a pariah anyway, just to be on the safe side :-)<br></br> Mustn't let facts get in the way of our beliefs, must we?<br></br> <strong>_________________________________________________________________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong>The Left Distorts Breivik's Mental World</strong></p>
<p class="sans-serif"><b>by Daniel Pipes July 22, 2012 <i>Cross-posted from …</i></b></p>
<p>Sorry, made a mistake, I don't seem to be listed in there at all. <br/> Well, better just treat me like a pariah anyway, just to be on the safe side :-)<br/> Mustn't let facts get in the way of our beliefs, must we?<br/> <strong>_________________________________________________________________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong>The Left Distorts Breivik's Mental World</strong></p>
<p class="sans-serif"><b>by Daniel Pipes July 22, 2012 <i>Cross-posted from <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/310223/left-distorts-breivik-s-mental-world-daniel-pipes" target="_blank">National Review Online</a></i></b></p>
<div class="no_print"><br/> Immediately after Anders Behring Breivik committed his terrorist atrocity in Norway a year ago today, killing 77, the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6709">Center for American Progress</a>, a <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/3136/emerson-on-fox-business-discusses-center-for">$38 million-a-year</a> liberal think tank, rushed out (under its ThinkProgress imprint) a <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/1851.jpg">graphic</a> that helpfully pointed out how often Breivik had cited 11 of what it called "right-wing pundits and organizations" in his manifesto, <i>2083 — A European Declaration of Independence</i>.</div>
<div><div id="print_content_3"><p> </p>
<div align="center" id="aeaoofnhgocdbnbeljkmbjdmhbcokfdb-mousedown"><img src="http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/1851.jpg" width="351" height="491" border="0"/></div>
<p> </p>
<p>CAP's research, which was much cited and had vast influence on the reporting of Breivik's mental formation, would lead one to believe that Breivik's sources of information came exclusively from those "right-wing pundits and organizations." Not so. Although I <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-the-left-and-me">noted a year ago</a> the essential deceit of this characterization, the full picture became apparent only later, thanks to a complete concordance created by Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism of the over 1,600 personal names in <i>2083</i>.</p>
<p><a name="continued" id="continued"></a></p>
<p>IPT's research establishes that, yes, Breivik certainly did mention conservatives, but he also mentioned about as many liberals and leftists, not to speak of Christians and Muslims, historical figures and writers. With IPT's authorization, I am posting the 84 names mentioned ten or more times in <i>2083</i>. (The discrepancy between CAP's and IPT's numbers results from their differing methodologies.)</p>
<p>IPT's list of 84 top mentions includes a very wide range of figures.</p>
<ul>
<li><i>Leftist thinkers</i>: Karl Marx (27 times), Theodor Adorno (26), György Lukács/George Lukacs (26), Herbert Marcuse (24), Antonio Gramsci (23), Thomas Hylland Eriksen (21), Colin Barker (20), and Friedrich Nietzsche (10).</li>
<li><i>Leftist politicians</i>: Tony Blair (20 times), Barack Obama (19), Andrew Neather (15), Javier Solana (12), Romano Prodi (12), and Gordon Brown (11).</li>
<li><i>Muslims</i>: Anwar Shaaban (48 times), Islam's prophet Muhammad (36), Osama bin Laden (29), Yasir Arafat (19), Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid (15), Abu Talal al-Qasimy (13), Ahmad Abu Laban (12), Ibn Khaldun (12), Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (11), Hasan al-Banna (11), and Sayyid Qutb (11).</li>
<li><i>Christian figures</i>: Jesus Christ (63 times), Pope Urban II (13), Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir (12), Michael the Syrian (11), and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (10).</li>
<li><i>Random historical figures</i>: Charles Martel (53 times), Hitler (50), Winston Churchill (23), Duke Odo of Aquitaine (21), John III Sobieski (19), Thomas Jefferson (18), Napoleon Bonaparte (17), Sitting Bull (14), and Benjamin Disraeli (10).</li>
<li><i>Writers</i>: Aristotle (25 times), Ivo Andrić (20), William Shakespeare (20), Plato (16), Salman Rushdie (16), George Orwell (12), Wilhelm Reich (12), and Sigmund Freud (11).</li>
</ul>
<p><i>Comments</i>:</p>
<p>(1) I count 13 critics of Islam or Islamism and 11 Muslims among the 84 top names mentioned by Breivik. Pretty much a draw, no?</p>
<p>(2) As for Breivik agreeing with those critics: hardly. As I <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/10007/norway-terrorism-in-context#damage">showed last July</a>, he intentionally sought to damage and delegitimize anyone who rejects his violent ways.</p>
<p>(3) The Center for American Progress distorted Breivik's mind by listing only conservatives – hardly a shock given CAP's <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=160A33C8-58FE-45A6-949B-1A6C9ED1A31A">history of shoddy work</a>.</p>
<p>(4) Concerning all those progressive eminentoes: after <a href="http://www.thenation.com/print/article/168374/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate">Max Blumenthal</a> recently lambasted me in <i>The Nation</i>, a Leftist magazine, for being mentioned by Breivik, I wrote a letter to its editors: "Were the<i>Nation</i> to boycott this posse of Marxists, leftists, and their protégés, its pages would stand quite empty."</p>
<p>(5) I am the 9th most commonly mentioned person, bizarrely finding myself right after Islam's prophet Muhammad, tied with Dutch politician Geert Wilders & Osama bin Laden, immediately ahead of Karl Marx.</p>
<p><a name="table" id="table"></a></p>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><b>Name</b></td>
<td><b>Tally</b></td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Bat Ye'or</td>
<td>71</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Fjordman</td>
<td>63</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jesus Christ</td>
<td>63</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Robert Spencer</td>
<td>54</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Charles Martel</td>
<td>53</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Shaykh Anwar Shaaban</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Adolf Hitler</td>
<td>50</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Mohammed</td>
<td>36</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Daniel Pipes</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Geert Wilders</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Osama Bin Laden</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Karl Marx</td>
<td>27</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>György Lukács (or George Lukacs)</td>
<td>26</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Theodor Adorno</td>
<td>26</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Aristotle</td>
<td>25</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Herbert Marcuse</td>
<td>24</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Andrew Bostom</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Antonio Gramsci</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Winston Churchill</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Bruce Bawer</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jean-Louis Bruguière</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Serge Trifkovic</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Speros Vryonis, Jr.</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Duke Odo of Aquitaine (Eudes the Great)</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Thomas Hylland Eriksen</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Colin Barker</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ivo Andric</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jean-Francois Ricard</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Tony Blair</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>William Shakespeare</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Barack Obama</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ibn Warraq</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>John III Sobieski</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Theo van Gogh</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Yasser Arafat</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Hugh Fitzgerald</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Thomas Jefferson</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Napoleon Bonaparte</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>A.E. Vacalopoulos</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Angela Merkel</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ayaan Hirsi Ali</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Plato</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Salman Rushdie</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Walid Shoebat</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Andrew Neather</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>José Manuel Barroso</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Pim Fortuyn</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sultan Abdul Hamid</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>George W. Bush</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Saga</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sitting Bull</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Valéry Giscard d'Estaing</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ali Sina</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Axel</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Erich Fromm</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Mike Tyldesley</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Nasrallah Sfeir</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Nicholas Sarkozy</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ole Jørgen Anfindsen</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>V.I. Lenin</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Abu Laban</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Camille Chamoun</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>George Orwell</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Javier Solana</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Pope Urban II</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Romano Prodi</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Wilhelm Reich</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Al-Ghazali</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Carl I. Hagen</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Hasan Al-Banna</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Henryk Broder</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ibn Khaldun</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jean Monnet</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Michael the Syrian</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sayyid Qutb</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sigmund Freud</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Thomas Madden</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Abu Talal al-Qasimy</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Benjamin Disraeli</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Edward Grant</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>F.A. Hayek</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Friedrich Nietzsche</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Gordon Brown</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Roger Scruton</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Saint Bernard of Clairvaux</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p id="">(July 22, 2012)</p>
</div>
</div> The Left Distorts Breivik's Mental Worldtag:4freedoms.com,2012-07-22:3766518:Topic:1078982012-07-22T22:47:07.437ZKinanahttp://4freedoms.com/profile/Kinana
<h1><span class="font-size-3"><b>by Daniel Pipes</b></span></h1>
<p><b>July 22, 2012<br></br><i><br></br></i></b></p>
<p><b><a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/07/left-distorts-breivik" target="_blank">http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/07/left-distorts-breivik</a></b></p>
<p>Immediately after Anders Behring Breivik committed his terrorist atrocity in Norway a year ago today, killing 77, the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6709" target="_blank">Center…</a></p>
<h1><span class="font-size-3"><b>by Daniel Pipes</b></span></h1>
<p><b>July 22, 2012<br/><i><br/></i></b></p>
<p><b><a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/07/left-distorts-breivik" target="_blank">http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/07/left-distorts-breivik</a></b></p>
<p>Immediately after Anders Behring Breivik committed his terrorist atrocity in Norway a year ago today, killing 77, the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6709" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a>, a <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/3136/emerson-on-fox-business-discusses-center-for" target="_blank">$38 million-a-year</a> liberal think tank, rushed out (under its ThinkProgress imprint) a <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/1851.jpg" target="_blank">graphic</a> that helpfully pointed out how often Breivik had cited 11 of what it called "right-wing pundits and organizations" in his manifesto, <i>2083 — A European Declaration of Independence</i>.</p>
<div> </div>
<div align="center"><img border="0" height="491" width="351" alt="" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/?ui=2&ik=a3e068d935&view=att&th=138b0b1cb46ab5e1&attid=0.1.10&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1"/></div>
<div> </div>
<p>CAP's research, which was much cited and had vast influence on the reporting of Breivik's mental formation, would lead one to believe that Breivik's sources of information came exclusively from those "right-wing pundits and organizations." Not so. Although I <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-the-left-and-me" target="_blank">noted a year ago</a>the essential deceit of this characterization, the full picture became apparent only later, thanks to a complete concordance created by Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism of the over 1,600 personal names in <i>2083</i>.</p>
<p><a name="138b0b1cb46ab5e1_continued"></a></p>
<p>IPT's research establishes that, yes, Breivik certainly did mention conservatives, but he also mentioned about as many liberals and leftists, not to speak of Christians and Muslims, historical figures and writers. With IPT's authorization, I am posting the 84 names mentioned ten or more times in <i>2083</i>. (The discrepancy between CAP's and IPT's numbers results from their differing methodologies.)</p>
<p>IPT's list of 84 top mentions includes a very wide range of figures.</p>
<ul>
<li><i>Leftist thinkers</i>: Karl Marx (27 times), Theodor Adorno (26), György Lukács/George Lukacs (26), Herbert Marcuse (24), Antonio Gramsci (23), Thomas Hylland Eriksen (21), Colin Barker (20), and Friedrich Nietzsche (10).</li>
<li><i>Leftist politicians</i>: Tony Blair (20 times), Barack Obama (19), Andrew Neather (15), Javier Solana (12), Romano Prodi (12), and Gordon Brown (11).</li>
<li><i>Muslims</i>: Anwar Shaaban (48 times), Islam's prophet Muhammad (36), Osama bin Laden (29), Yasir Arafat (19), Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid (15), Abu Talal al-Qasimy (13), Ahmad Abu Laban (12), Ibn Khaldun (12), Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (11), Hasan al-Banna (11), and Sayyid Qutb (11).</li>
<li><i>Christian figures</i>: Jesus Christ (63 times), Pope Urban II (13), Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir (12), Michael the Syrian (11), and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (10).</li>
<li><i>Random historical figures</i>: Charles Martel (53 times), Hitler (50), Winston Churchill (23), Duke Odo of Aquitaine (21), John III Sobieski (19), Thomas Jefferson (18), Napoleon Bonaparte (17), Sitting Bull (14), and Benjamin Disraeli (10).</li>
<li><i>Writers</i>: Aristotle (25 times), Ivo Andrić (20), William Shakespeare (20), Plato (16), Salman Rushdie (16), George Orwell (12), Wilhelm Reich (12), and Sigmund Freud (11).</li>
</ul>
<p><i>Comments</i>:</p>
<p>(1) I count 13 critics of Islam or Islamism and 11 Muslims among the 84 top names mentioned by Breivik. Pretty much a draw, no?</p>
<p>(2) As for Breivik agreeing with those critics: hardly. As I <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/10007/norway-terrorism-in-context#damage" target="_blank">showed last July</a>, he intentionally sought to damage and delegitimize anyone who rejects his violent ways.</p>
<p>(3) The Center for American Progress distorted Breivik's mind by listing only conservatives – hardly a shock given CAP's <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=160A33C8-58FE-45A6-949B-1A6C9ED1A31A" target="_blank">history of shoddy work</a>.</p>
<p>(4) Concerning all those progressive eminentoes: after <a href="http://www.thenation.com/print/article/168374/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate" target="_blank">Max Blumenthal</a> recently lambasted me in <i>The Nation</i>, a Leftist magazine, for being mentioned by Breivik, I wrote a letter to its editors: "Were the <i>Nation</i> to boycott this posse of Marxists, leftists, and their protégés, its pages would stand quite empty."</p>
<p>(5) I am the 9th most commonly mentioned person, bizarrely finding myself right after Islam's prophet Muhammad, tied with Dutch politician Geert Wilders & Osama bin Laden, immediately ahead of Karl Marx.</p>
<p><a name="138b0b1cb46ab5e1_table"></a></p>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><b>Name</b></td>
<td><b>Tally</b></td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Bat Ye'or</td>
<td>71</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Fjordman</td>
<td>63</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jesus Christ</td>
<td>63</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Robert Spencer</td>
<td>54</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Charles Martel</td>
<td>53</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Shaykh Anwar Shaaban</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Adolf Hitler</td>
<td>50</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Mohammed</td>
<td>36</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Daniel Pipes</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Geert Wilders</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Osama Bin Laden</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Karl Marx</td>
<td>27</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>György Lukács (or George Lukacs)</td>
<td>26</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Theodor Adorno</td>
<td>26</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Aristotle</td>
<td>25</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Herbert Marcuse</td>
<td>24</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Andrew Bostom</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Antonio Gramsci</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Winston Churchill</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Bruce Bawer</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jean-Louis Bruguière</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Serge Trifkovic</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Speros Vryonis, Jr.</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Duke Odo of Aquitaine (Eudes the Great)</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Thomas Hylland Eriksen</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Colin Barker</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ivo Andric</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jean-Francois Ricard</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Tony Blair</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>William Shakespeare</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Barack Obama</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ibn Warraq</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>John III Sobieski</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Theo van Gogh</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Yasser Arafat</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Hugh Fitzgerald</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Thomas Jefferson</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Napoleon Bonaparte</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>A.E. Vacalopoulos</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Angela Merkel</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ayaan Hirsi Ali</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Plato</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Salman Rushdie</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Walid Shoebat</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Andrew Neather</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>José Manuel Barroso</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Pim Fortuyn</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sultan Abdul Hamid</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>George W. Bush</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Saga</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sitting Bull</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Valéry Giscard d'Estaing</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ali Sina</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Axel</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Erich Fromm</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Mike Tyldesley</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Nasrallah Sfeir</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Nicholas Sarkozy</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ole Jørgen Anfindsen</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>V.I. Lenin</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Abu Laban</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Camille Chamoun</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>George Orwell</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Javier Solana</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Pope Urban II</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Romano Prodi</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Wilhelm Reich</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Al-Ghazali</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Carl I. Hagen</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Hasan Al-Banna</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Henryk Broder</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Ibn Khaldun</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Jean Monnet</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Michael the Syrian</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sayyid Qutb</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Sigmund Freud</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Thomas Madden</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Abu Talal al-Qasimy</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Benjamin Disraeli</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Edward Grant</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>F.A. Hayek</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Friedrich Nietzsche</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Gordon Brown</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Roger Scruton</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Saint Bernard of Clairvaux</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>(July 22, 2012)</p>
<p><span><b>Related Topics:</b> <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/topics/54/conservatives-liberals" target="_blank">Conservatives & Liberals</a>, <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/topics/6/daniel-pipes-autobiographical" target="_blank">Daniel Pipes autobiographical</a>, <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/topics/59/muslims-in-europe" target="_blank">Muslims in Europe</a></span><span><i>This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.</i></span></p> Why Liberals are Terrified by Anders Breiviktag:4freedoms.com,2012-05-02:3766518:Topic:1006542012-05-02T00:33:14.072ZJohn Carlsonhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/JohnCarlson
<p>Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik</p>
<p>Robert Henderson</p>
<p>The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik in Oslo is truly remarkable. It is not Breivik who is fearful , but the Norwegian political mainstream trembling their way towards what they hope will be a politically correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:</p>
<p>“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison,…</p>
<p>Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik</p>
<p>Robert Henderson</p>
<p>The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik in Oslo is truly remarkable. It is not Breivik who is fearful , but the Norwegian political mainstream trembling their way towards what they hope will be a politically correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:</p>
<p>“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison, despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to be criminally responsible.</p>
<p>But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in the trial.” (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html</a>)</p>
<p>Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be so politically incorrect.</p>
<p>Liberals are desperately struggling to fit the man into their fantasy world where everyone is wondrously multicultural and gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass immigration or the denial of human nature and difference which is the essence of political correctness. This entails a blind refusal to engage with Breivik’s declared motives and general criticism of modern Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world generally) . In a nutshell, they do not know how to rationally respond to a man who challenges everything they believe in and can only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who can be viewed in the same way that the audience for a nineteenth century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.</p>
<p>The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of the indoctrination of Norwegians. The song , Children of the Rainbow, contains lyrics such as these:</p>
<p>“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see</p>
<p>An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?</p>
<p>Together shall we live, every sister, brother</p>
<p>Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”</p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/7556/norway-fights-against-mass-killer-breivik-by-singing-children-of-the-rainbow/related">http://www.policymic.com/articles/7556/norway-fights-against-mass-killer-breivik-by-singing-children-of-the-rainbow/related</a>.</p>
<p>In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian children to sing that and the Hitler Youth leading renditions of the Horst Wessel song ?</p>
<p>Three tactics have been used to negate the danger Breivik represents: say he is insane, seek to censor his testimony on the ground that he will use the trial to promote his political ideas or attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person. This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere. Consequently, even outside of Norway there is precious little attempt to present reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead liberals generally have offered feeble personal abuse of his person, bald assertions that his arguments are wrong and delusional and claims that he must be mad.</p>
<p>Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has raised? Because they know in their heart of hearts that their declared political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite decades of politically correct propaganda and the punishment of those who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal sanction’s such as loss of employment, humans still feel what they have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and territoriality. Liberals know this in the most certain way because they , like everyone else, have the feelings which lead human beings to naturally think in terms of membership of a group and to favour those like themselves. This commonly makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching, a trait most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant settlement.</p>
<p>It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy of avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in England) a very white and very English world . (The favourite white liberal excuse for denying themselves the experience of the joy of diversity is that it is a matter of class which causes them to end up well away from the diversity. This , the white liberal claims, is because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity. It is an argument which does not seem to provide an adequate garment to cover the hypocrisy of the likes of the leftist folk singer Billy Bragg who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became invaded by ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the whitest and most English of counties).</p>
<p>When people support an ideology which they know is false or at the least not objectively demonstrable, they invent excuses for reality not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a consequence of social conditioning. They then follow the logic of that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals) harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts to re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail, as they always do, the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the required alterations in human behaviour. This provides an excuse to continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian restrictions on how people may behave. The liberal’s chosen vehicle for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political correctness or, to the politically and academically inclined, cultural Marxism.</p>
<p>But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are supposed to be according to the politically correct canon, liberals, even the most committed believers, also have a terrible fear that if people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a revolution which might, at best, overthrow what they fervently want or, more venally , could result in dire consequences from themselves as the rage of those who have suffered from the enforcement of political correctness and mass immigration is let off the leash. At the very least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of political correctness would vanish. This would remove the livelihoods of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political correctness and even more from those who pay lip-service to political correctness simply to obtain one of the politically correct sinecures. There is a very large vested interest in maintaining political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with power.</p>
<p>If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become the elite ideology of most of the Western world. That makes it toxic and potentially dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism. It is catastrophically pernicious because it is totalitarian in its nature for it reaches into every aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any situation is the politically correct one.</p>
<p>The ills of mass immigration and the enforcement of multiculturalism require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those who either cannot fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or will not assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral culture ,must of itself be immediately divisive and, eventually, if immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the original population becoming a minority in their own land and their own culture, at the least, badly mangled by that stark change in fortune.</p>
<p>The state promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a homogeneous society, but this may be an effect rather than a cause of the mass immigration. Rather than being the result of a conscious plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has happened, control native dissent and attempt to deal with the inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy such as multiculturalism which pretends that there is no such thing as tribalism in the human DNA and everything is consequently for the best in all possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it provides the elite with a narrative for what has happened which diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.</p>
<p>The ill effects of political correctness as it relates to issues other than those arising from race and ethnicity are less immediately obvious. The ever growing censorship of what may be said or done is obvious enough, but there are other more subtle effects. Because its tenets run directly contrary to the way human beings naturally behave as individuals and in the mass , political correctness will never gain general acceptance, but what it can do is inhibit the normal social relationships of a society by making it dangerous for individuals to behave naturally. By definition, this must undermine the efficient functioning of any community because people are being asked to behave in a manner which is alien to their natural function. .</p>
<p>The idea that discrimination – the Great Satan of political correctness – is self-evidently and always wrong is a literal nonsense. Humans like every other organism have to make choices. Choice requires discrimination. We discriminate in finding people sexually attractive; in liking them as people; in choosing someone because we believe they are competent to do something and in a myriad other ways. People have to discriminate between people many times a day. All of these things are matters, like race, over which individuals have no control because the judgement is made by others not themselves. Except for a few very advanced cases of political correctness, liberals make no complaint about such discrimination. The choice of race, gay rights and sexual equality as the great forbidden subjects of discrimination is arbitrary, no more than an ideological whim.</p>
<p>When the state interferes in the necessary and natural use of discrimination, which includes the exercise of preference for those who most resemble ourselves , they distort society. Breivik’s prime complaint apart from the effects of multiculturalism generally and Islam in particular is that Norwegian society has become feminised. There is force in his argument. Norway has probably gone further than any other country in forcing through the use of law and incessant propaganda women into areas where they were considerably under-represented, most notably in politics (<a href="http://www.norway.org/aboutnorway/society/Equal-opportunities/gender/politics/">http://www.norway.org/aboutnorway/society/Equal-opportunities/gender/politics/</a>)and business (<a href="http://www.20-first.com/406-0-a-personal-account-of-the-quota-legislation-in-norway.html">http://www.20-first.com/406-0-a-personal-account-of-the-quota-legislation-in-norway.html</a>).</p>
<p>Breivik believes that the changes in male roles and the straitjacket of feminism on Norway has emasculated Norwegian men. He has a point. The films of the Stieg Larsson Millennium trilogy (set in Sweden not Norway, but Sweden is a country which is part of the general Scandinavian appetite for feminism) show us a very strange world in which men are all viewed as potential rapists unless they have been emasculated by feminist propaganda, women revenge themselves on men with violence and women play the authority roles in the same way that blacks do in Hollywood films (<a href="http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/politically-incorrect-film-reviews-the-millenium-trilogy/">http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/politically-incorrect-film-reviews-the-millenium-trilogy/</a>). Looking at the personnel involved in the Breivik trial, it is eerily reminiscent of the world depicted in the Millennium films. The senior judge and one of the leading prosecutors are women. The men who appear , such as Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippstad , commonly have a strangulated emasculated manner . Interviews with many of the Norwegian men speaking about the Breivik killings also display this quality.</p>
<p>Why does this matter? There are fundamental, and to everyone other than liberals, obvious reasons why men are normally masculine and women are feminine in their behaviour. That is the way Nature has crafted their respective general personalities and behaviours. Male dominance is the norm amongst mammals and it would be extraordinary if it was not present in human beings. Even if it was possible to remove the trait through conditioning, it would beg the question of whether it would be wise to do so. At best it would be a reckless gamble. Human beings need to feel that their lives have purpose. Take away the natural roles of men and women and most will at some point in their lives feel that their natural purpose has been subverted.</p>
<p>As for women, the fact that they bear children of itself writes the general script of both their lives and personalities. There will always be women who do not want children or who fail to display a strong maternal instinct if they do have them, but the great majority will naturally behave in a feminine manner.</p>
<p>The natural instincts of Norwegian men and women have not been abolished, but men entering the Norwegian elite will tend to be those who are less strongly masculine and this trait will continue for as long as political correctness is the dominant ideology. Any human group selects new members from those who most resemble the group. In the case of Norway there will be the strongest selection pressure for emasculated men to be selected for the elite because so many women, most of whom will be strongly feminist because that is the mentality which pushes them forward in modern Norwegian political life, will be within the group. Any man who is both naturally masculine and espouses masculine behaviour, will be excluded. Below the Norwegian political elite will be the men who retain their masculinity, but even they will be hamstrung by the cloying feminist dominance.</p>
<p>Exactly what sort of society will emerge in such circumstances is problematic, but it is worth noting that the predominance of feminism in Norway creates a situation potentially more immediately destabilising than that of immigrants because women, unlike immigrants, already form more than 50% of the population. There is a majority with a vested interest in perpetuating and expanding feminist privileges at the expense of men.</p>
<p>In the longer term a situation of great irony could arise in Norway, with the demands of feminism clashing with those of other groups created by the politically correct, especially Muslims, to crush feminist policies.</p>
<p>The management of the trial</p>
<p>While they are refusing to engage with Breivik’s complaints against what the Norwegian political elite have done – permitted mass immigration and unceasingly promoted multiculturalism in particular and political correctness generally with their consequent profound changes to Norwegian society – liberals everywhere are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulation about how civilised it all is, a positive model of a modern liberal society which shows how morally superior is the politically correct view of the world. Ralph Waldo Emmerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour/the faster we counted the spoons” comes to mind, as well it should, for when the claim of liberal rectitude and beatific self-restraint is looked at in detail it rapidly collapses.</p>
<p>From the time of the massacre the Norwegian authorities have carefully controlled the narrative. Until the trial began , apart from brief court appearances Breivik was kept under wraps, most of the time in solitary. His only conduit to the outside world has been his defence lawyer Geir Lippstad , a man who radiates permanent liberal angst and puts in the shade British barristers representing those deemed to have “racist” or “far right” views who routinely trot out something along these lines: “My client is utterly despicable but you must put that out of your minds and judge him on the evidence”. At his first press conference after agreeing to represent Breivik, Lippstad blithely stated that his client was mad (a claim he later withdrew). Before the trial began Lippstad was wringing his hands again about the defence he was being asked to present and made it quite clear that it was both repugnant to him and nonsense.</p>
<p>The trial is being very carefully stage-managed . Parts are being broadcast, but the court has ruled that neither Breivik’s testimony - both his statement and cross examination – or that of his witnesses can be broadcast. (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17312079">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17312079</a>). This allows the liberal dominated mainstream media and politics to give their version of what Breivik is and stands for. They wish to show him at best as a contemptible and negligible person who is not worth listening to and at worst a strange creature so far from the norm as to be beyond any consideration other than that of a monstrous curiosity.</p>
<p>As so often with modern liberals, personal abuse is freely offered against those who refuse to accept the politically correct view of the world, despite the fact that the politically correct supposedly hold that a person’s appearance is utterly irrelevant and derogatory mention of it a prime example of the liberal’s Great Satan: discrimination. Here is a good example from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph : “The voice gave little away, but the killer’s eyes, posture and physique spoke volumes. As the days wore on and he became unsettled by the prosecution’s questioning, white specks of dandruff flecked Breivik’s dark jacket, beads of sweat glistened on a face pockmarked by acne, and a motionless comb-over grew more slicked and gleaming.” (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9218529/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Six-days-in-the-company-of-a-mass-murderer.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9218529/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Six-days-in-the-company-of-a-mass-murderer.html</a>)</p>
<p>As the public cannot watch Breivik in action, no one outside the court has a clue whether the reports of his behaviour, looks and words are a truthful representation of what is going on. For all we know He might be wiping the floor with the prosecutor and any other hostile questioner. The same will apply when the witnesses for the defence are called.</p>
<p>The management of the proceedings is further heightened by the broadcast of the evidence from witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, you get the other side of the story in full and directly (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html</a> – 2.31 pm). With Breivik’s evidence there is not only the missing personal behaviour, but the quotes which appear in the media are selective, concentrating not unnaturally on the more sensational of his words.</p>
<p>Amongst the self-congratulatory liberal tosh about what a model of liberal restraint the trial is can be found the contention that Breivik would not have been given such licence to put his views in many other Western jurisdictions including that of England. I doubt whether that is true. Breivik is arguing that he acted in self-defence, the danger to himself (and the rest of Norwegian society) being the policies of allowing mass immigration, the promotion of multiculturalism and the strangulation of any public dissent through the rigorous application of political correctness which he feared would lead to the destruction of Norwegian culture and that this would effectively leave any Norwegian at the mercy of forces inimical to Norwegian values and customs, in his eyes most especially Islam This would at best leave Norwegians as a subject people in their own ancestral homeland or at worst result in their complete obliteration as a people .</p>
<p>Those are of course political statements, but that does not disqualify them as reasons why someone should have a rational fear of what is happening and that the consequences of what is occurring - mass immigration and multiculturalism – could plausibly lead to a mortal threat to Norwegian society and by extension to Breivik. The fact that they are so politically dangerous for the political elite would make it difficult for any legal system anywhere to simple refuse such a justification of a plea self-defence. This was the case with Breivik because before he was allowed to read his statement there were strong hints that he would not be allowed to read it even if it was not televised. (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9205393/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-barred-from-reading-new-manifesto-in-court.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9205393/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-barred-from-reading-new-manifesto-in-court.html</a>).</p>
<p>There is also a question mark over whether Breivik is pleading self-defence in the sense that it would be understood in an English court:</p>
<p>“8.05am Before the court started, journalists were spoken to by the translators who said that “self-defence” was a misleading translation for the grounds for acquittal Breivik is invoking. A better translation would be “necessity”, they said as the clause he’s referring to is about defence of property and defence of others, not solely about defence of your own person.”</p>
<p>08.28am While we wait for a decision, more on the clarification from the translators regarding Breivik’s defence of “necessity” rather than “self-defence”. In Norway section 47 of the penal code states:</p>
<p>No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone’s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.”</p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html</a>).</p>
<p>The charges brought against Breivik also potentially provide grounds for challenge. Here are the salient parts of the indictment:</p>
<p>“THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OF OSLO</p>
<p>hereby indict Anders Behring Breivik, born 13.02.1979 currently remanded in custody before the Oslo District Court, pursuant to section 39 of the Penal Code, for sentence to be passed for his transfer to compulsory mental health care, cf. chapter 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, for having in a psychotic state committed an otherwise punishable act, namely in violation of:</p>
<p>Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letters a and b, cf. sections 148 first paragraph first penalty alternative and 233 first and second paragraphs</p>
<p>for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code, first paragraph, first penalty alternative (bringing about an explosion whereby loss of human life or extensive damage to the property of others could easily be caused) and of section 233 first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.</p>
<p>II Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letter b, cf. section 233 first and second paragraphs</p>
<p>for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 223 of the Penal Code, first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously intimidating a population.” (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206336/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-indictment-in-full.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206336/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-indictment-in-full.html</a>)</p>
<p>Consider the passage “with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.” Breivik was certainly not “seriously intimidating a population”. Rather, he was seriously intimidating the ruling political elite by attacking the generation who were being trained to become the political elite. As for “seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority”, it is true the bomb attack was meant to harm members of the government including the Norwegian Prime Minister, but in a representative democracy even the death of a Prime Minister should not “seriously disrupt a function of vital importance to society”.</p>
<p>Breivik’s mental state</p>
<p>The calls for Breivik to be considered mad unambiguously show the authoritarian nature of the modern liberal mind. Compare their calls for him to be judged insane with the treatment of others who have killed for political reasons such as Islamic fanatics and IRA bombers. They were and are not treated by liberals as deranged but as terrorists at worst, although plenty of liberals will always find ways of qualifying even that judgement because of the terrorist’s supposed motives and environment. As Breivik observed if he was a “bearded jihadist” no psychiatric investigation would have been asked for. (1.11 pm <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html</a>)</p>
<p>Breivik is really in the same bracket as such people. Indeed, it could be argued that his motivation is far more rational that, for example, the Jihadist who believes he will go to paradise with 72 virgins to use as he sees fit. He has real fears about the future of his country and a clear idea of what he is doing, viz:</p>
<p>“10.28am Prosecutor Engh asked Breivik if he thought there were any parallels between what he had done and a war situation.</p>
<p>Breivik replied that it was “not a war but a political attack …. and I was trying to prevent a future civil war. Not just me but other political nationalists – we believe that this will happen” (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html</a>)</p>
<p>Moreover, ostensibly at least, Breivik has not killed on a whim, as an exercise in sadism, to revenge himself for personal slights or injuries or because he has a proven mental disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia with voices in his head telling him to kill people before they killed him. He has no psychiatric history and , despite the best efforts of the first set of psychiatrists who examined him to diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic, this judgement was contradicted by a second examination which found Breivik to be sane. The other strong pointer to his sanity is the fact that he successfully executed a meticulously planned and complex attack.</p>
<p>Breivik cooperated with the first psychiatrists who adjudicated on his sanity but not the second. Could it be that the first psychiatrists, faced with the physical reality of someone saying all the things they as, as politically correct believers, could not bear to think anyone who so contradicted their views was sane? The second set of psychiatrists were not confronted with such a reality made flesh and came to their judgement simply on his known views and behaviour, a much less emotionally involving business. Perhaps ominously for Breivik, the Daily Telegraph reported on 23 April that at “2.43pm The judge has read to the court comments from the Norwegian commission for forensic medicine, which has asked for “further work” to be done on the second psychiatric report into Breivik. This is the report which found he was sane.” (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html</a>)..</p>
<p>If this were an English court it is difficult to see how Breivik could meet the test of insanity required by the McNaghten Rules. These rest on whether a person accused of a crime knew they were doing something wrong or were suffering a defect of reason through mental illness, most commonly paranoia, which drove them to commit the crime in the belief that it was necessary to commit it , most probably because of a belief that they or someone else was in danger. Clearly Breivik is aware of what he was doing and how it would be viewed by society. That leaves only the question of whether he was acting under a delusion. That test would fall because manifestly what he fears, the objective threats to his society from mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness and Islam, are concrete facts. How far they could be judged to be mortal threats is another matter, but no one could reasonably argue that, in particular, mass immigration and Islam are not real and substantial threats to the nature of Norwegian society.</p>
<p>Compare the political positions of Breivik and the politically correct:</p>
<p>Breivik points out the inevitable ill consequences of mass immigration; the particular threat from Islam and the enforcement of the totalitarian ideology political correctness.</p>
<p>The politically correct ask human beings to pretend that that there is no difference between people of varying races and cultures; to willingly allow the invasion of their territory by strangers; pretend that life is enriched by changing from a homogenous to a fractured heterogeneous society through mass immigration; accept all sexual relationships as equally natural and socially useful and ignore the very obvious differences in interests and biological function between men and women in the name of sexual equality. The ideology requires people to behave as if they were not human.</p>
<p>Who is more divorced from reality?</p>
<p>Breivik’s ideas</p>
<p>How bright is Breivik? We are not talking Immanuel Kant here, but neither is he a complete clod. His 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence lists his concerns and programme for action as:</p>
<p>1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe</p>
<p>2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began</p>
<p>3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)</p>
<p>4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades</p>
<p>5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts</p>
<p>The complete manifesto can be found at <a href="http://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf">http://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>There are aspects of the ridiculous about his ideas, most notably the guff about the foundation of a latterday Knight’s Templars of which he describes himself as “ Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement” and his truly embarrassing obsession with uniforms. Breivik also shows great obtuseness in thinking that a political manifesto of 1,518 pages is a practical instrument to get his message across to a wide public, which was presumably his intent. To the length of his writing can be added the barrier of the quasi-academic style of much of the content. This prolixity and user-unfriendly style is unsurprising, because he appears to be an autodidact and an inability to understand an audience or edit out the marginal from the directly pertinent often comes with that territory. But that does not make what he has to say unimportant merely difficult to access.</p>
<p>In his manifesto Breivik is overly obsessed with Islam, although interestingly, in his statement to the court it is reported that: “09.32am The statement makes no reference to his crimes, his belief he is a Knight Templar, or, interestingly Islam. Instead, it’s a rant against left-wing multi-culturalism. “ (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html</a>).</p>
<p>The threat to Norwegian society posed by Islam is not to be underestimated, but it is a subset of the larger general threat from immigration generally, especially in countries other than Norway. It could be argued that if it was only Muslims which constituted a threat, then the danger might be both better appreciated and more easily dealt with, because it is only the multiplicity of competing ethnicities which allows multiculturalism - a classic divide and rule strategy – to be peddled. (The same applies to the entirety of political correctness, because that also relies on creating sectional groups who can be similarly manipulated ).</p>
<p>Nonetheless, it is true that Islam represents the most coherent, immediate and obvious threat from immigrants in Europe because of the numbers involved – estimates of Muslims in the EU are around 20 million – (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html</a>) and the nature of the religion itself which provides plenty of unambiguous injunctions to use force against non-Muslims to enforce Islam and is generally implacable in its drive towards domination. In judging Breivik’s fears they should be put in the context of the fact that Norway has a population of less than 5 million (<a href="http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/">http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/</a>). Mass immigration is a vastly more pressing matter for Norwegians than it is for a country with a population of, say, 50 million or more.</p>
<p>How many Muslims are there in Norway? No one knows for sure because the Norwegian statistics office does not count people by religion. Estimates by non-governmental bodies give figures such as 144,000 in 2010 (<a href="http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/">http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/</a>) and 163,000 in 2009 (Islam in Norway <a href="http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/IslamiNorge.html">http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/IslamiNorge.html</a> .) These figures would not seem unreasonable when placed against the Statistics Norway 2010 figure for first and second generation immigrants:</p>
<p>“Immigrants and those born in Norway to immigrant parents constitute 655 000 persons or 13.1 per cent of Norway’s population, among which 547 000 are immigrants and 108 000 are born in Norway to immigrant parents.</p>
<p>Broken down by region, 294 000 have a European background, 163 000 persons have a background from Asia, 60 000 from Africa, 18 000 from South- and Central-America and 11 000 from North America and Oceania.</p>
<p>57 100 of those born in Norway to immigrants parents have an Asian background, 29 000 have parents from Europe, 19 500 from Africa and 2 600 have immigrant parents from South- and Central America. “ <a href="http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/">http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/</a></p>
<p>It would be a fair bet that the large majority of the Asians are Muslims.</p>
<p>Despite these substantial shortcomings, Breivik’s message is most powerful and (for liberals) a tremendously dangerous. He strikes directly at the social poison which lies at the heart of not only Norway but much of the First World: the pernicious consequences of mass immigration and the ideological justification for it – multiculturalism – which Western elites have developed to justify both the immigration and the authoritarian measures employed to prevent public dissent at its permitting. In addition, by condemning political correctness generally he strikes at the other sacred cows of political correctness , gay rights and feminism. If Breivik is widely judged to be right in his core views (not his actions) the immense edifice of political correctness erected in in Norway (and elsewhere) over the past half century is under threat.</p>
<p>The eternal crime of treason</p>
<p>Most deadly for the liberal elite is Breivik’s attack on mass immigration. He is accusing the Norwegian elite of collective and sustained act of treason which he believes will obliterate Norway as a recognisable nation</p>
<p>The idea of treason is so potent because it is one of very few crimes which exists in people’s minds regardless of whether a law enshrining it is on the statute book. Indeed, it could be argued that it is the only crime which commands such universality of natural recognition because even crimes such as murder and theft are open to considerable differences of definition for example, killing by vendetta has been morally sanctioned in many societies and theft by conquest lauded. But treason is always treason, the betrayal of the tribe, clan or nation. It is even more fundamental than that, because its roots rest in the anger and dismay felt by any human being if they are let down by another whom they trusted.</p>
<p>A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a country and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice (and increasingly in theory) , and the coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under threat – see <a href="http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/what-is-treason-today/">http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/what-is-treason-today/</a>)</p>
<p>Liberals have been conditioned to eschew a sense of nation. Breivik has not. Here he is explaining why he wept at his trial when watching one of his videos :</p>
<p>“Because my country is in the process of dying – it was the sorrow over seeing my country … deconstructed. Especially the songs, combined with the message” (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9210659/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-three-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9210659/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-three-live.html</a>).</p>
<p>There will be few in the West who will espouse Breivik’s actions but many who will in varying degrees sympathise at some level with his complaints about mass immigration, the demands of Muslims within Western societies and the strangling of human nature by political correctness. A good parallel for British readers is the relationship between Irish nationalists and the actions of the IRA. Support for the IRA varied from outright glorification of terrorist acts to those who adopted what might the called the “I don’t agree with their methods but… ” approach whereby they supported the ends but not the means.</p>
<p>What liberals everywhere should be doing is questioning why the imposition of their political ideology could drive someone to do what Breivik did. Such massacres are rare to the point of almost non-existence in modern Western society. The only real parallel is the bombing of government offices carried out by Timothy McVeigh in the USA (<a href="http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-oslo-massacre-and-the-treason-of-the-liberals/">http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-oslo-massacre-and-the-treason-of-the-liberals/</a>) .</p>
<p>In both cases the perpetrators – Breivik and McVeigh - were men who lived in societies which provided for their material needs. They were not driven to do what they did by poverty. They were not fighting against an occupying power or an overt dictatorship. Both men could have continued to live what, by the standard of most places in the world , were extremely comfortable lives. Yet both chose to leave that security and engage in acts which by any standard were wholly exceptional and deeply disturbing. Moreover, the acts are disturbing not just for the slaughter which occurred, but also for their causes.</p>
<p>Norwegians who buy into the multicultural, politically correct propaganda which has been pumped out for decades ought to be examining the type of world their rigid adherence to political correctness has created. It has produced the sense of social claustrophobia common to overt totalitarian states whereby people find the range of opinion they are permitted shrinks and shrinks and instead of behaving naturally they are constantly thinking is it safe to say this? It is a mental gaol. Breivik described the symptoms graphically:</p>
<p>“09.46am I’m not scared of the prospect of being imprisoned. I was born in a prison and I have spent my life in a prison… this prison is called Norway. It doesn’t matter if I am locked into a cell, because you know that all areas will end up in a multicultural Hell that we call Oslo. “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html</a>).</p>
<p>Above all liberals need to ask themselves why, if Breivik’s ideas are so absurd, so outlandish they are afraid of them. The poet John Milton had the answer to those who wished to censor:</p>
<p>‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton - Areogapitica].</p>
<p>If Breivik is as irrational and delusional as liberals wish to make out, and liberals believe sincerely in what they say, they would surely let their perceived truth go into battle with Breivik’s perceived truth. The reality is that liberals at best do not think that their ideas are practical or palatable to the majority at present and at worst they have ceased to believe in political correctness but cannot say so for fear of the consequences to themselves.</p>
<p>A sociologist and professor at Oslo university, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, has been called to give evidence for Breivik. He has yet to give evidence but in the, to English eyes, rather curious world of Norwegian criminal justice, he has spoken to the media about his coming evidence (there appears to be little if any concept of sub judice in Norway) :</p>
<p>“I expect that they want me to help them substantiate the claim that he was not insane, what I can say is that his world view, or large parts of his world view are fairly widely shared… And this world view exists, not shared by a majority but by a fairly vocal and potentially dangerous minority,” Eriksen said. (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9211988/Anders-Breivik-unable-to-distinguish-reality-says-professor.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9211988/Anders-Breivik-unable-to-distinguish-reality-says-professor.html</a>).</p>
<p>There you have a liberal coming as close as they are likely to get to an admission of what they all fear: that Breivik’s views (although not his actions) are shared by large numbers of people, especially his views on immigration and Islam. Prof Eriksen is wrong in one respect: it is not a “dangerous minority” but humans generally who have these feelings, including, as mentioned previously, liberals. People may have been brainwashed but that does not means normal human instincts have vanished or that people generally believe in the propaganda. Instead people develop a fear response which drives them to shun views which clash with the ideology and to give evidence of their belief in the ideology in public situations by paying lip service to it.</p>
<p>While an ideology can be enforced, the public will display behaviours ranging from a servile adherence to the ideology to promote their interests to lip service just to remain safe. But once the means of enforcing the ideology are removed these behaviours will rapidly vanish. The societies liberals have built in the West are houses of cards just waiting to be knocked over if the stranglehold of the politically correct can be broken.</p>
<p>I will end with a question, What is the non-violent means to break the hold on power of elites who would destroy the societies they come from through mass immigration, obsessively enforce political correctness and ruthlessly suppress dissent to what they are doing through the criminalisation of ideas which run counter to those of the politically correct?</p>
<p><a href="http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/why-liberals-are-terrified-by-anders-breivik/">http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/why-liberals-are-terrified-by-anders-breivik/</a></p> The Trial of Anders Breiviktag:4freedoms.com,2012-04-19:3766518:Topic:997272012-04-19T10:33:06.348ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>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…</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>The first thins is an interview with the leader of the Norwegian Defence League, who has been called to give evidence.</strong> 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:</p>
<p><a href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/norway/forum/topics/the-coward-of-ut-ya-island">http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/norway/forum/topics/the-coward-of-ut-ya-island</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The questions are italiicised. Please complain if it is still not clear who is saying what.</p>
<hr/><p><a href="http://norwegiandl.com/modules/nyheter_norsk/item.php?itemid=85">http://norwegiandl.com/modules/nyheter_norsk/item.php?itemid=85</a> </p>
<p><em>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?</em></p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>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. <br/>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”.</p>
<p><em><br/></em></p>
<p><em><br/></em></p>
<p><em>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?</em></p>
<p>“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…”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><em>Has Breivik ever been a member of NDL after that Lena Andreassen steered the ship straight into the iceberg?</em></p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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….”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><em>What will you say to Breivik if you get a chance to a direct appeal to him?</em></p>
<p>“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!”</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>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?</em></p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><span style="color: #ff0000;"><em>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?</em></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">“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.</span></p>
<p>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. <br/>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?”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><em>Prior to 22.7; had you heard about Breivik?</em></p>
<p>“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!”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><em>Do you, as Breivik, believe that the Islamization of Norway has gone too far? If so, why?</em></p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>On your opinion; is the danger of another terrorist attack in Norway the most from a new Breivik, or from a crazed Islamist?</em></p>
<p>“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...<br/> 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.”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><em>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?</em></p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/><em>Is Breivik crazy?</em></p>
<p>“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.”</p> Anders Behring Breivik claims victims were not innocenttag:4freedoms.com,2012-04-17:3766518:Topic:995332012-04-17T11:51:36.540ZJohn Carlsonhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/JohnCarlson
<p>He identified as his enemy the "cultural Marxists" who he said had destroyed <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/norway" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Norway">Norway</a> by using it as <strong>"a dumping ground for the surplus births of the third world"</strong>. Claiming Norwegians would be a minority in their own capital "within five years", he blamed liberal politicians for bringing about Norway's demise with "feminism, quotas … transforming the church, schools".</p>
<p>The 69…</p>
<p>He identified as his enemy the "cultural Marxists" who he said had destroyed <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/norway" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Norway">Norway</a> by using it as <strong>"a dumping ground for the surplus births of the third world"</strong>. Claiming Norwegians would be a minority in their own capital "within five years", he blamed liberal politicians for bringing about Norway's demise with "feminism, quotas … transforming the church, schools".</p>
<p>The 69 people, many of them teenagers, who died on the island of Utøya when he opened fire on the youth camp of the ruling Labour party were "not innocent", he claimed.</p>
<p><strong>"They were not innocent, non-political children; these were young people who worked to actively uphold multicultural values. Many people had leading positions in the leading Labour party youth wing,"</strong> he said, going on to compare the Labour party's youth wing (AUF) with the Hitler Youth.</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>He was not insane, he repeated many times. He claimed <strong>it was Norway's politicians who should be locked up in the sort of mental institution</strong> in which he can expect to spend the rest of his life if the court declares him criminally insane at the end of the 10-week trial.</p>
<p>Breivik said: "<strong>They expect us to applaud our ethnic and cultural doom … They should be characterised as insane, not me. Why is this the real insanity? This is the real insanity because it is not rational to work to deconstruct one's own ethnic group, culture and religion.</strong>"</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true</a></p>