25 Jul

What does the Oslo Killer and Islamic Militants Share in Common?

                                       

Bigotry. Hatred. Murderous intolerance.

Blake Hounshell at Foreign Policy’s Passport writes that he read through Breivik’s 1500 page Manifesto, “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”, which was posted at Stormfront.org.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates along with militant Islamists in general are the biggest killers of their own fellow Muslims who aren’t radically Islamist enough for them. And Breivik, rather than attacking Muslims, goes after “his own”, who he deems to be enablers and polluters of his white, European race and culture:

In grim, apocalyptic language, it advocates attacks on “traitors” across Europe who are supposedly enabling a Muslim takeover of the continent.

“[W]e should… not exceed (per 2010) aprox. 45 000 dead and 1 million wounded cultural Marxists/multiculturalists in Western Europe,” the author writes. “The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come.”

The manifesto also provides detailed instructions for everything from making a bomb to raising funds to preparing physically and mentally for what the author describes as a coming three-stage “civil war” between patriotic nationalists and “multiculturalists” who are, wittingly or not, destroying European civilization.

Although he targeted his fellow Norwegians for slaughter, make no mistake about the scope of his hatred:

Filled with hateful rantings against Muslims — whom the author claims are on a trajectory to take over Europe and erase its culture patrimony — the writing bears a great resemblence to online comments attributed to Anders Breivik, 32, the confessed architect of a massacre that has so far claimed nearly 100 lives.

A massacre that shortly after, jihadis cheered and praised, to the extent that some, including themselves, jumped to the conclusion (not entirely illogical and unwarranted) that this was the handiwork of Islamic terrorists.

I’m sure their feelings toward Breivik are probably mutual:

Oddly, despite his evident hatred of Muslims and Arabs, “Berwick” professes admiration for al Qaeda, which he lists as one of only two “successful militant organisations” due to its “superior structural adaptation.”

“If Muhammad was alive today,” he writes, “Usama Bin Laden would have been his second in command.”

Elsewhere, he cites al Qaeda’s training manual as a reference, and declares, “Just like Jihadi warriors are the plum tree of the Ummah, we will be the plum tree for Europe and for Christianity.”

In another eerie parallel, he also calls for suicidal operations in service of the larger cause: “Let us be perfectly clear; if you are unwilling to martyr yourself for the cause, then the PCCTS, Knights Templar is not for you.”

He is no different than those murderous religious fanatics he claims to hate. He is the kind of infidel al-Qaeda and its affiliated network are begging for on the opposite side of the fence: Someone willing to engage with them in a clash of civilizations.

Something that the majority of Muslims in the Islamic world have rejected.

This entry was posted in Europe, Fanatical Islam, Mass Murders, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, July 25th, 2011 at 7:27 am
| 696 views

50 Responses to What does the Oslo Killer and Islamic Militants Share in Common?

  1. Greg says: 1

    Breivik’s discussion of who needs to be killed: 3.44 Traitor – classification system – Category A, B and C traitors

    ReplyReply
  2. DaNang67 says: 2

    If this had happened in the US, the backlash would be devastating. The left in power here would seize the opportunity to impose severe freedom-killing laws and regulations. For everyone’s sake, especially the victims’, may this be the last such episode of this madness anywhere.

    ReplyReply
  3. Greg says: 3

    #2

    I’m not sure such criticism should be leveled entirely at the left. Oklahoma City didn’t bring on that sort of response. 9/11 resulted in the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and a series of executive orders of questionable constitutionality.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    If you have read Mark Steyn’s America Alone (about the demographic suicide of the ethnic Europeans and necessary invitation of immigrants to pay the taxes for the socialist plans to care for all the retirees) and also Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept (about how the elitist rulers in Europe merely looked upon their growing immigrant population as ”colorful”) you would realize actions like this man’s were entirely predicable.

    Russia will cease to be a native Russian-speaking populated country within the next few years.
    Most of the European countries are accepting their Islamization very peacefully.
    The UK made headlines only last month when they accepted 10 or so Sharia-run enclaves within their borders.
    France has many hundreds of neighborhoods where the ethnic French cannot freely go.
    Amsterdam was once known as a very gay-friendly city, now roving bands of morality police prevent even the public holding of hands by same-sex couples.
    There is a whole lot of surrender going on by the European governments.

    BUT, some of the people do not want to live under the rule of a suffocating morality force that is extra-governmental.
    Sure, a great many who feel that way have already left.
    Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Israel are common destinations.
    But then there are those who share their beliefs but do not desire to pick up and leave their traditional homes….or are too poor to be able to.
    So, this was bound to happen.
    It is a sad thing.
    Years, decades actually, ago a historian wondered what would happen when non-Muslims ran out of places to run away TO.
    For poor ethnic Europeans that day has come.
    They feel trapped in their own land.
    Maybe the solution would be to take away all their weapons as the transformation into Eurabia finishes taking place.

    ***EDITED TO ADD:
    Bruce Bawer is a resident of Oslo.
    He wrote an essay about this.
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-double-tragedy-for-norway/?singlepage=true
    He found out that the perp had thought he was sort of an ally (but Bruce’s homosexuality limited his usefulness to ”the movement).
    There are already threats against Bruce from people in Norway.
    Since he is a native American who has only lived in Europe for a couple of decades, it might be wise for him to come home to the USA soon.

    ReplyReply
  5. DANEgerus says: 5

    Oklahoma City was exploited by Clinton. You may not be able to cite changes in law… but we got stuck with him.

    ReplyReply
  6. Hard Right says: 6

    He reminds me of the nazis. He’s a nationalist and racist, but still a type of leftwing socialist. No I’m not blaming this on the left or saying he’s one of them. I am saying he shares significant traits with the nazis.

    ReplyReply
  7. Aye says: 7

    @Greg:

    I’m not sure such criticism should be leveled entirely at the left. Oklahoma City didn’t bring on that sort of response.

    Are you saying that, in the wake of the OKC bombing, the left in this country didn’t attempt to enact legislation and restrictions on things that could be used as bomb components? Why, yes, they did.

    Of course, the OKC event didn’t happen with guns so the comparison is a bit of apples and oranges.

    The closest, and most recent, example we had in America are the shootings in Tucson. Now, you and I both know what happened in the wake of Loughner’s crimes. The left was shrieking about gun control before the bodies were buried.

    9/11 resulted in the Patriot Act

    Which was passed on a bi-partisan basis. The extension of the Patriot Act was supported by Obie whilst he was still a Senator. Furthermore, an extension of the Patriot Act was signed by President WTF not too long ago.

    the Department of Homeland Security

    I seem to recall that there was widespread opposition to the creation of DHS up to, and including, President GW Bush.

    and a series of executive orders of questionable constitutionality.

    Which executive orders would those be and what would be the constitutional questions related to them?

    ReplyReply
  8. DANEgerus says: 8

    I also question the assertion that Islamic Extremism is widely rejected. Polling in most Islamic countries shows 50-75% support for Jihad, the link seems to only confirm that failure is discouraging them. Remember Bin Laden’s “strong horse” argument? I’m NOT saying all Muslims are terrorists, but the levels of support for extremist rhetoric & violence is very high and the level of extremism doesn’t seem to dampen that support. Just losing.

    It is also worth pointing out the same levels of support for “Christian” terrorism simply doesn’t exist. AT ALL. Talk radio and Fox News aren’t celebrating martyrs or naming buildings after butchers of children.

    The very fact the Oslo Killer was an exception proves the rule. There are no rallying groups supporting him or his action. Yet his violence was so easily mistaken for yet another act of Jihadist extremism that most assumed exactly that including the Jihadists themselves as documented by the NYTimes and Atlantic. So the Oslo Killer illustrates he is an exception, and our initial reaction illustrates the rule.

    But we have a new rule. From Timothy McVeigh to the Oslo Killer every 16 years a crazy-white guy is going to emulate the Jihadists which will result in the Multiculturalist apologists smearing their critics and excusing the thousands of Jihadist murders during those 16 years. So remember that every Jihadist is an isolated and disturbed INDIVIDUAL with no ties to Islamic etremism or international terrorism but any violent white guy must be part of a Palin/GlennBeck conspiracy of hate even if he is later proven to be a Leftist extremist.

    ReplyReply
  9. Hard Right says: 9

    Dangerus, you assume that he was a right winger. I have yet to see that. Was he more Conservative than the leftist people of Norway? Certainly, but it doesn’t take much to be able to say that. He seemed to be into racial and cultural purity which is hardly right wing when based on European history (ie the nazis).
    Ultimately I’d have to call him a deluded nut like loughner. I mean really, how would a fellow Norwegian slaughtering children trigger an anti-Muslim crusade?

    ReplyReply
  10. Greg says: 10

    @Aye, #7:

    I’m not sure such criticism should be leveled entirely at the left. That means the right can also be criticized.

    ReplyReply
  11. Greg says: 11

    @Hard Right, #9:

    He was a long-time member of Norway’s Progress Party. Read up on their ideology and see if they sound right or left. He left the party in 2006. Why he did so might be explained by something in his manifesto:

    Any and all individuals who sympathise with the PCCTS principles and/or are affiliated with (but not limited to) the European Resistance Movements (patriotic liberalists or conservatives), nationalist movements of any category, Christian movements or any type of cultural conservative movement are encouraged to volunteer and appoint themselves as Justiciar Knights and fight under the banner of the PCCTS – the cross of the Martyrs.

    By doing so, the individual(s) will avoid incriminating anyone in his environment or his or her old “organisation”. Normally, any individual who decides he want to choose the road of the PCCTS, a road of strength and honour, courage and martyrdom, should leave any other organisation for practical reasons (first and foremost in order to protect them). He will then spend a predefined time preparing himself mentally (this cannot be emphasised enough) as well as for planning the actual operation (planning, financing and eventually execution of the plan). This may take longer than 36 months depending on the nature of the assault.

    ReplyReply
  12. Hard Right says: 12

    Greg, nazis were of the left. Thet were a type of Socialist. Not identical to what we have in the U.S. , but of the left. He sounds to me like a nazi more than anything else with a few ideological exceptions. The nazis hated communists and viewed other races as inferior and something of a plague.
    You see, I’ve read a number of his posts and what writings of his I can get, and saying he’s right wing is just dishonest.

    ReplyReply
  13. rich wheeler says: 13

    Hard Right and Greg Can we agree;
    1) Communism is far left
    2) Nazis hated Communists
    3) Wouldn’t it follow Nazis were Far Right? Which ofcourse they were.
    4) Far right has a great distrust and dislike of Muslims which in Europe translates into anti-immigration and assimilation.
    5) The Norwegian shooter was a Muslim hating, Nazi inspired, Far Right lunatic.

    ReplyReply
  14. Nan G says: 14

    @rich wheeler:
    Let’s use that ”logic” elsewhere, rich.

    George HW Bush is a Republican.
    George HW Bush hates broccoli.
    I love broccoli.
    Therefore I MUST be a Democrat.

    Same logic.

    ReplyReply
  15. rich wheeler says: 15

    NAN Not the same. Let’s ask our trusted author WORD Were Nazis left, right, something other?
    Nan BTW In 1 thru 5 in #13 above which do you Agree with? Disagree? Thanks

    ReplyReply
  16. Aye says: 16

    @rich wheeler:

    1) Communism is far left

    Correct.

    2) Nazis hated Communists

    Well, that depends. During WWII they cooperated to a certain extent. See Poland, for example, and the agreement between Stalin and Hitler to split the country.

    For further research, watch “The Soviet Story.” It’s a documentary which tells the story of the holodomor as well as how Jews fleeing Poland to escape the Germans aboard trains were unceremoniously shipped right back by the Russians.

    3) Wouldn’t it follow Nazis were Far Right? Which ofcourse they were.

    No. That’s faulty logic. You’re thinking of the left end of the political spectrum as being open to only one form of ideology. That’s not the case.

    In order to determine which end of the spectrum the Communism and Nazism fall on you only have to examine the basic tenets of the political spectrum itself.

    On the far left end of the spectrum lies totalitarianism, ie really big government. On the right end of the spectrum lies anarchy, ie no government at all.

    Now, where does Communism fall on that spectrum? Clearly, it falls on the far left end because it entails a big government structure.

    Where does Nazism fall on that spectrum? It too, falls on the far left end because of the big government structure.

    There are many other elements of Communism and Nazism that could be pointed to that show their position on the spectrum but the big government structure is a clear enough delineating factor to put them firmly on the left.

    Here’s more:

    “The common assumption is that the Nazis were a right-wing phenomenon, a right-wing party … and Hitler was a man of the right,” he explains. “And there are a lot of problems with this. His social agenda was for expanding universal access to health care, for expanding access to education … it was for attacking big business and high finance … almost anything you can find on a checklist that allegedly proves Hitler was a right-winger you can apply to almost any of the major communist dictators of the 20th century.”

    http://videos.nymag.com/video/Glenn-Beck-Nazis-Were-Left-Wing

    ReplyReply
  17. rich wheeler says: 17

    Aye ALWAYS GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU.
    DICTIONARY DEF. Far Right– supremiscm,rejection of social equality,authoritarianism,nativism,racism,xenophobia.fascism.Then a picture of a guy with plastered hair and an ugly little mustache.
    Interesting you should quote Beck today after his “Hitler Youth” comparison.

    ReplyReply
  18. Aye says: 18

    @rich wheeler:

    Was there a factual argument in there somewhere? If so, I didn’t see it.

    Repeating the same thing over and over and over again after it’s already been refuted won’t suddenly make it true.

    You might want to actually attempt some facts next time because you’re making a fool of yourself on this topic.

    ReplyReply
  19. Hard Right says: 19

    @rich wheeler:

    1) Communism is far left
    2) Nazis hated Communists
    3) Wouldn’t it follow Nazis were Far Right? Which ofcourse they were.
    4) Far right has a great distrust and dislike of Muslims which in Europe translates into anti-immigration and assimilation.
    5) The Norwegian shooter was a Muslim hating, Nazi inspired, Far Right lunatic.

    Aye beat me to the punch long ago, but I’ll post anyway.
    Rich, have you not seen extremist Muslims kill less extremist Muslims despite similar beliefs? Does that somehow mean they are on the opposite end of the political spectrum? Hardly. It’s the same with the nazis and communists. Similar beliefs, but hatred for each other for whatever reason.

    ReplyReply
  20. Hard Right says: 20

    Little more info on how the nzais were of the left:
    http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html

    Just an excerpt of the above:
    “Were Hitler’s economic policies in the 1930s, however, significantly different from those of Roosevelt, his counterpart in the United States? On the contrary, there was a striking similarity between FDR’s New Deal and the methods that Hitler used to get Germany out of the Depression. Both FDR and Hitler instituted massive government spending campaigns, including public-works programs, to bring full employment to their countries. In the United States, for example, there was the Hoover Dam. In Germany, there was the national autobahn system.

    The Nazis also imposed an extensive system of governmental control over German businesses. Was Roosevelt’s approach any different? Consider FDR’s pride and joy, his National Recovery Act, which was characterized by the infamous Blue Eagle. With the NRA, the U.S. government required entire industries to combine into government-protected cartels, and directed them to fix wages and prices in their respective industries. If a businessman refused to go along, he faced prosecution and punishment, not to mention protest demonstrations from Blue Eagle supporters. (The Supreme Court ultimately declared the NRA unconstitutional.)

    Let’s also not forget the important paternalistic elements of Hitler’s national socialism: Social Security, national health care, public schooling, and unemployment compensation. Sound familiar? ”

    Rich, if the dictionary calls a tree a dog and describes it as though it were a dog, does that make it a dog? No.

    ReplyReply
  21. rich wheeler says: 21

    Aye and Hard Right You guys are pulling my leg.Right?Aye The only thing I’ve repeated is the definition.No weight?
    We all know large majority of experts describe Nazism as far right. H.R. If you don’t believe the dictionary what can I say? Not possible to argue with that mindset.
    Easy exit quesstion Who in this country and on this site HAVE shown themselves to be the primary Islamaphobes?
    Word I respect you as a moderate and await your call on Nazism,Thoughts on shooters continued praise of Ms. Geller?

    ReplyReply
  22. Nan G says: 22

    @rich wheeler:
    If you re-read my #4, especially the link in the edited portion, you will see how surprised and shocked peace-loving people are at having been looked upon with ANY favor by this nutcase.

    Bruce Bawer is receiving so many death threats that he may have to leave Oslo.

    When Charlie Manson said the Beatles song, Helter Skelter ”told” him to kill people, was there anybody who thought for one second that the song had a secret message?
    No!

    When Breivik claims Bawer, Geller or others ”inspired” him just remember the barking dog that the crazy murderer David Berkowitz claimed also ”inspired” him.

    Whatever justification this guy comes up with will be as crazy as he is.
    He clutched at straws so as to convince himself he was part of some bigger thing that does not exist.

    Bawer, Geller, Spencer, Fjordman, never advocated anything remotely violent…..ever.
    Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Adam Smith are also mentioned.
    HHHHmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………

    ReplyReply
  23. rumcrook says: 23

    nazi means national SOCIALISM, got that? SOCIALISM THAT IS NATIONAL AS APPOSED TO INTERNATIONAL.

    SOCIALISM IS A LEFTIST CONSTRUCT.

    therefor your wrong nazism is not right wing.

    ReplyReply
  24. Ditto says: 24

    Hitler and Mussolini took some of their governing ideas from Woodrow Wilson’s example. Wilson was a “progressive” Democrat and was also known for his racism. See: http://www.suite101.com/content/woodrow-wilson-and-white-supremacy-a126787

    Wilson took over the US economy completely. He charged Bernard Baruch with running the War Industries Board, which would endeavor to control all industry in service to the state. It would serve as a precursor to the corporatist policies Mussolini and Hitler.

    http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/woodrow-wilson-americas-worst-and-first-fascist-president/

    ReplyReply
  25. Aye says: 25

    @rich wheeler:

    Over and over again your points have been refuted with one source after another.

    As of yet, you haven’t presented anything factual to a) support your premise or b) counter the factual information presented against your claims.

    You can want it to be true all you want (and we both know how desperately you want it to be true). The problem is that you have to prove it.

    As of now, you haven’t done that and you continue to make an absolute fool of yourself by repeating yourself on and on.

    Exit Question: Breivik mentions Geller’s name one time in his manifesto. How does that constitute “continued praise” as you claim?

    ReplyReply
  26. Hard Right says: 26

    @rich wheeler:

    The dictionary isn’t proof. You do know definitions get changed, right? Now why could that be? Hmmmmmm.
    What experts rich? How about naming some? Where is your proof a “majority” of them say what you claim? You ignored the link I posted that had many “experts”.
    You’ve also just been caught parroting leftists talking points by claiming he has continued to praise Geller. You clearly aren’t much for thinking, let alone rational thought.
    As Aye has pointed out you have presented no actual proof of any kind, yet insist you’re right because your emotions and ego demand that nazis be of the right. No arguing with that bigotted, narcissitic mindset.

    If you had any shame you’d be embarrassed by your posts.

    ReplyReply
  27. Aye says: 27

    @Hard Right:

    I’d love to know what “dictionary” he’s looking at. Perhaps he’ll be so kind as to link it for us.

    If so, that would be the first source he’s cited in this conversation.

    ReplyReply
  28. Hard Right says: 28

    @Aye:

    I think even he knows he’s in over his head, so I won’t hold my breath.

    ReplyReply
  29. Nan G says: 29

    Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press destroys the weak talking point from the Left that these murders should be an excuse to go after outspoken anti-jihadists.
    Her essay is titled:
    Blaming the innocent for Mass Murderers

    It is exceptionally good.

    ReplyReply
  30. Keyser Söze says: 30

    http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html

    Nazi Fascism and
    the Modern Totalitarian State

    Synopsis
    The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism’s ideology included a racial theory which denigrated “non-Aryans,” extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.
    INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
    Students will learn:
    1. The principal characteristics of totalitarianism.

    2. The ways in which a totalitarian regime differs from a dictatorship.

    3. The ways in which right-wing totalitarian regimes differ from left-wing totalitarian regimes.

    4. The principal features of Fascism.

    5. The principal features of Nazism.

    CHAPTER CONTENT
    Totalitarianism
    Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life, through the state’s use of propaganda, terror, and technology. Totalitarian ideologies reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform, project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the alternative order. These ideologies, supported by propaganda campaigns, demand total conformity on the part of the people.
    Totalitarian forms of organization enforce this demand for conformity. Totalitarian societies are hierarchies dominated by one political party and usually by a single leader. The party penetrates the entire country through regional, provincial, local and “primary” (party-cell) organization. Youth, professional, cultural, and sports groups supplement the party’s political control. A paramilitary secret police ensures compliance. Information and ideas are effectively organized through the control of television, radio, the press, and education at all levels.

    Totalitarian Regime vs. Dictatorship
    Totalitarian regimes differ from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny. Totalitarian regimes seek to establish complete political, social and cultural control, whereas dictatorships seek limited, typically political, control. Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished: Nazism and Fascism which evolved from “right-wing” extremism, and Communism, which evolved from “left-wing” extremism. Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes. Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn their popular support primarily from middle classes seeking to maintain the economic and social status quo. Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth. A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective ownership of such capital.
    Totalitarian regimes mobilize and make use of mass political participation, and often are led by charismatic cult figures. Examples of such cult figures in modern history are Mao Tse-tung (China) and Josef Stalin (Soviet Union), who led left-wing regimes, and Adolf Hitler (Germany) and Benito Mussolini (Italy), who led right-wing regimes.

    Right-wing totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis) have arisen in relatively advanced societies, relying on the support of traditional economic elites to attain power. In contrast, left-wing totalitarian regimes have arisen in relatively undeveloped countries through the unleashing of revolutionary violence and terror. Such violence and terror are also the primary tools of right-wing totalitarian regimes to maintain compliance with authority.

    Fascism
    Fascism was an authoritarian political movement that developed in Italy and several other European countries after 1919 as a reaction against the profound political and social changes brought about by World War I and the spread of socialism and Communism. Its name was derived from the fasces, an ancient Roman symbol of authority consisting of a bundle of rods and an ax. Italian fascism was founded in Milan on March 23, 1919, by Benito Mussolini, a former revolutionary socialist leader. His followers, mostly war veterans, were organized along paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as uniforms. The early Fascist program was a mixture of left- and right-wing ideas that emphasized intense Nationalism, productivism, anti-socialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader. Mussolini’s oratorical skills, the post-war economic crisis, a widespread lack of confidence in the traditional political system, and a growing fear of socialism, all helped the Fascist party to grow to 300,000 registered members by 1921. In that year it elected 35 members to parliament.
    The Philosophy of Fascism
    The intellectual roots of Fascism can be traced to the voluntaristic philosophers who argued that the will is prior to and superior to the intellect or reason.
    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher who held that the will is the underlying and ultimate reality and that the whole phenomenal world is the only expression of will. Human beings have free will only in the sense that everyone is the free expression of a will and that we therefore are not the authors of our own destinies, characters, or behavior, he wrote. He theorized that space, time, and causality were not absolute principles but only a function of the brain, concepts parallel to the scientific discoveries of relativistic physics two generations later.

    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher and poet best known for “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” He theorized that there were two moral codes: that of the ruling class (master morality) and that of the oppressed class (slave morality). The ancient empires grew out of a master morality, and the religions of the day out of the slave morality (which denigrates the rich and powerful, rationalism, and sexuality). He developed the concept of the “overman” (superman) which symbolized man at his most creative and highest intellectual capacity.

    Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher of Jewish parents who was the leading rejectionist of the concept that scientific principles can explain all of existence. He asserted that metaphysical principles also apply. He found credence in applying the biological theories of Darwin (which pointed to the “survival of the fittest” in biological systems) to social theory.

    George Sorel (1847-1922) was a French social philosopher who had a major influence upon Mussolini. Sorel believed that societies naturally became decadent and disorganized, and this inevitable decay could only be delayed by the leadership of idealists who were willing to use violence to obtain power. His anti-democratic, anti-liberal views and pessimistic view about the natural life-cycle of a society were antithetical to most of his contemporaries.

    Gabriele D’Annunzio (1863-1938) was an Italian politician, poet, dramatist, novelist and war hero who was a supporter of Mussolini.

    Fascist Ideology
    Fascist ideology was largely the work of the neo-idealist philosopher, Giovanni Gentile. It emphasized the subordination of the individual to a “totalitarian” state that was to control all aspects of national life. Violence as a creative force was an important characteristic of the Fascist philosophy. A special feature of Italian Fascism was the attempt to eliminate the class struggle from history through nationalism and the corporate state. Mussolini organized the economy and all “producers” – from peasants and factory workers to intellectuals and industrialists – into 22 corporations as a means of improving productivity and avoiding industrial disputes. Contrary to the regime’s propaganda claims, the system ran poorly. Mussolini was forced into compromises with big business and the Roman Catholic Church. The corporate state was never fully implemented. The inherently expansionist, militaristic nature of Fascism contributed to imperialistic adventures in Ethiopia and the Balkans and ultimately to World War II.
    Nazism
    Nazism refers to the totalitarian Fascist ideology and policies espoused and practiced by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker’s Party from 1920-1945. Nazism stressed the superiority of the Aryan, its destiny as the Master Race to rule the world over other races, and a violent hatred of Jews, which it blamed for all of the problems of Germany. Nazism also provided for extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples into a single empire. The economy envisioned for the state was a form of corporative state socialism, although members of the party who were leftists (and would generally support such an economic system over private enterprise) were purged from the party in 1934.
    Paramilitary Organizations
    Nazism made use of paramilitary organizations to maintain control within the party, and to squelch opposition to the party. Violence and terror fostered compliance. Among these organizations were the:
    S.A. (Sturmabteilung): Stormtroopers (also known as “brown-shirts”) were the Nazi paramilitary arm under Ernst Rîhm. It was active in the battle for the streets against other German political parties.

    S.D. (Sicherheitsdiest): the Security Service under Reinhard Heydrich.

    S.S. (Schutzstaffel): Defense Corps, was an elite guard unit formed out of the S.A. It was under the command of Heinrich Himmler.

    Gestapo (Geheime Staatpolizeil): the Secret State Police, which was formed in 1933.

    Nazism also placed an emphasis on sports and paramilitary activities for youth, the massive use of propaganda (controlled by Joseph Goebbels) to glorify the state, and the submission of all decisions to the supreme leader (FÅhrer) Adolf Hitler.

    VOCABULARY
    Communism – A social, political, and economic system characterized by the revolutionary struggle to create a society which has an absence of classes, and the common ownership of the means of production and subsistence and centralized governmental control over the economy.
    Dictator – A ruler having absolute authority and supreme jurisdiction over the government of a state; especially one who is considered tyrannical or oppressive.

    Elitism – Philosophy that a narrow clique of the “best” or “most skilled” members of a given social group should have the power.

    Fascism – A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.

    Hierarchy – A body of persons organized or classified according to rank, capacity, or authority.

    Ideology – The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

    Left-wing – As used in this chapter, individuals and groups who desire to reform or overthrow the established order and advocate change in the name of greater freedom or well-being of the common man.

    Nazism – The ideology and policies of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker’s Party from 1921 to 1945.

    Propaganda – The systematic spreading of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests.

    Right-wing – As used in this chapter, individuals or groups who profess opposition to change in the established order and who favor traditional attitudes and practices, and who sometimes advocate the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order.

    Totalitarianism – A form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life, through the state’s use of propaganda, terror, and technology.

    ReplyReply
  31. Aye says: 31

    @Keyser Söze:

    While I appreciate you taking the effort to post that source material, alas, it is fundamentally flawed.

    On a the political spectrum, totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, ie oppressive regimes with complete or near complete government control, fall on the far left end of the government spectrum.

    On the same spectrum, anarchy, or a lack of government, falls on the far right end of the spectrum.

    The analysis you posted posits the theory that the Nazi regime, while totalitarian, is right wing.

    That’s simply not possible.

    The establishment and maintenance of a totalitarian or authoritarian regime requires a large government structure to enforce its’ wishes. Right wing ideology abhors large government.

    Thus, it’s simply not possible for those forms of gov’t to fall on the right end of the spectrum.

    ReplyReply
  32. rich wheeler says: 32

    Aye In “theory” right wing ideology may abhor large govt. but in “practice” as shown in #30 this is often not the case.H.R. will certainly understand this.
    Thanks to Keyser Soza. Great job! Much too flippantly dismissed by A.C.
    Would like to hear from Word and John Galt.

    ReplyReply
  33. Keyser Söze says: 33

    @Aye:

    Aye, I was actually more entertained by the articles information and how closely it mimics Obama’s mind set for government control. In reading the different political systems, it would appear Obama is taking the shotgun approach to see which one sticks, kind of like throwing shit at the wall and trying to wash it off, some of it will stick.

    It would appear Obama is more right wing than his minions can identify with…

    “Right-wing totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis) have arisen in relatively advanced societies, relying on the support of traditional economic elites to attain power.”

    Thinking of Soros, Hollywood, Wall Street, and Unions providing the finance under the right wing definition.

    Obama is also applying the left wing strategy…
    “In contrast, left-wing totalitarian regimes have arisen in relatively undeveloped countries through the unleashing of revolutionary violence and terror. Such violence and terror are also the primary tools of right-wing totalitarian regimes to maintain compliance with authority.”

    Thinking here of Van Jones’ “bottom up, top down” approach to achieving their goals with the use of the civilian security force and non-uniformed union thugs stirring the pot.

    We live in interesting times.

    ReplyReply
  34. Aye says: 34

    @rich wheeler:

    Again, you’re beclowning yourself.

    Kindly explain how large gov’t, totalitarian control falls on the right on the political spectrum.

    Edumakate me O Wise One.

    ReplyReply
  35. Greg says: 35

    @Aye, #31:

    The establishment and maintenance of a totalitarian or authoritarian regime requires a large government structure to enforce its’ wishes. Right wing ideology abhors large government.

    When did size become a determining characteristic on the traditional left-right classification axis? All else being equal, large nations generally have larger governments than tiny nations. I don’t think we can conclude that large nations tend toward the left end of the political spectrum, while tiny nations tend to the right.

    The problem might be that the traditional left/right classification system is itself fundamentally flawed. The fact that we would argue whether Third Reich nazis were left or right seems to demonstrate the limited usefulness of a single axis of classification.

    A far more revealing system is the political compass, which is defined by 2 ideological axes: The extremes of the horizontal axis are communism (left) and neo-liberalism (right); the extremes of the vertical scale are authoritarianism (fascism) at the top and libertarianism (anarchism) at the bottom. A graphic of the political compass can be seen here.

    The quickest way to understand how the compass works is to take this test, consisting of a series of statements that you express agreement or disagreement with. At the end of the test your own position on the political compass appears with an analysis.

    No doubt it’s sometimes useful to politicians and political organizations that people think of them only in left/right terms. A single axis can conceal much that they might prefer people not pay attention to.

    ReplyReply
  36. Aye says: 36

    At the extreme left of the spectrum is totalitarianism, which is defined as “the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to absolute state authority.” This is a somewhat broad definition of government into which several forms can fit, and there are two common aspects of totalitarianism: One is authoritarianism – “of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”; and the other is statism, defined as the “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.”

    A government can be authoritarian, but not statist – and vice-versa. However, a totalitarian government will always be both. The government will be “highly centralized” and there will certainly be a body that is not “constitutionally responsible to the people” and which has amassed absolute power. In simple terms, totalitarianism is absolute government authority.

    Socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Socialism is not by any means a new form of government, only brought to the world in the mid-19th century. Its roots can be traced back to at least the dawn of modern civilization where the collectivist ideology – combined with some version of authoritarian or statist control – ruled from ancient Egypt to the Roman Empire. The only difference between the old world and the new is the manner in which it was and is to be implemented in the respective societies. No span of time can change the fact that socialist empires and nations of the past were, by definition, socialist.

    Every socialist government is oppressive because each denies the rights of individuals in one way or another. The only difference between socialist states is the degree of oppression within them.

    Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with a lesser form of leftist government. But what is forgotten is that economic freedom is inseparable from social freedom. One cannot truly exist without the other. Consequently, socialism is merely a broad definition of the various forms of statist governments. According to that definition, we will see that the most totalitarian governments are simply a specific brand of socialism.

    There are two particular forms of government that are socialist and totalitarian by definition: fascism and Nazism.

    Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Fascism fits into all of the previously mentioned definitions, thereby making it the most totalitarian form of government by design.

    The argument that fascism is a right-wing ideology – as opposed to a left-wing totalitarian state – is an absurdity. The only way that such a government can be classified as right-wing is if the reasons for implementing that form of government were treated as the mode of classification. However, as it was previously pointed out, why a government adopts specific laws and policies is irrelevant when determining whether or not they deny basic human rights. If one government confiscates property because they don’t believe a certain religion ought to be practiced and another confiscates property because they think rich people don’t deserve all of their wealth, then the result is still the same: citizens are deprived of their rights. One cannot be a right-wing ideology and the other a left-wing. It defies reason to set up that premise, let alone make an entire argument out of it.

    Nazism was “the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Worker’s party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the fuhrer.” Strictly by definition, Nazism was totalitarian, as the Nazi Party had specifically adopted that philosophy. They also explicitly advocated the socialist ideology – as the term Nazism implies (Nationalsozialismus, or “National Socialism”). Their model of government is essentially identical to fascism, and both are left-wing at their core.

    In addition to the abovementioned forms of government, there are two more that fit into the socialist category, but both are not totalitarian by design. One must achieve its goals by openly adopting totalitarian rule temporarily (or so it is claimed) and the other must become totalitarian by necessity. However, both must accomplish their stated goals through totalitarian principles. These forms of government are communism and its more intricately defined sibling, Marxism.

    Communism is “a theory advocating elimination of private property : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.” Marxism is defined as “a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.”

    In and of itself, communism is not necessarily authoritarian, statist, or even autocratic, let alone totalitarian. However, it is a collectivist ideology, which does in fact infringe on basic human rights. Much like Marxism, strict government authority of the socialist philosophy is necessary to curb any influence from the principles of individualism and capitalism – i.e. the acquisition of wealth, or property, through individual achievement and ingenuity. Communism is the antithesis of individualism, and therefore, represents an ideal contrary to liberty.

    Communism cannot be implemented without an implicit acknowledgement of the need for totalitarian principles in order to restrain the citizenry and hold society together to attain a common, or collective, goal. Marxism acknowledges totalitarianism as a necessity to reach its stated end. So, while fascism, Nazism, and – for all intents and purposes – Marxism are totalitarian by design, the general communist theory is totalitarian by necessity. All are socialist and authoritarian at their core.

    With regards to the political spectrum, socialism – and therefore, all four of these forms of government – is placed at the far left. For a more nuanced position, it could be argued that totalitarian governments by design would be to the left of totalitarian governments by necessity.

    To the right of the socialist governments is democracy. Democracy is defined as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” It is commonly referred to as the “rule of the majority.”

    Democracy, in and of itself, is by no means a benevolent system. The mere fact that there are elections for representatives and a majority vote rules instead of the written law does not necessarily beget a society of individual opportunity, prosperity, or justice. At any time, the whims of the majority can trump the natural liberties of any individual. And there is also no assurance that socialism cannot be implemented by a simple majority vote. In essence, a democracy is fragile and there is nothing that guarantees the rights of individuals or a freedom from oppressive government.

    Democratic socialism actually combines the economic theories of the left with the representation and voting privileges of the citizenry common in a democracy. By name, this form of government would appear to fall just between socialism and democracy on the spectrum. However, in reality – and as previously mentioned – economic and social freedom are inseparable. As a result, the term “democratic socialism” is nothing more than an oxymoron and finds itself under the umbrella of the common socialist form of government.

    A republic, defined as “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law,” would be to the right of democracy. In a republic, the rights of citizens can be protected by law, which representatives in the government must not violate. The government’s authority and actions can also be limited and defined by its citizens. This type of government is commonly referred to as a constitutional republic.

    There are many versions of republican government, but they are not to be confused with governments that call themselves “republics” – such as China or many of the national governments that comprised the former U.S.S.R. (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Contrary to popular belief, the term republic does not merely refer to any type of government. It would take some extreme mental contortion to argue that the Soviet Union had no less a republican government than the United States of America does. The various “republics” that govern by totalitarian principles merely feign a level of responsibility to their citizens and adherence to the law. Also, in many cases, the “law” has already codified the socialist agenda or the totalitarian rule, so the appearance of citizens having a say in government policy is little more than a cruel joke.

    At the extreme right of the spectrum would be anarchy, which is the “absence of government.” However, as anarchy is just an abstraction, there cannot be a legitimate place for it on a political spectrum that defines governments. In fact, a state of anarchy neither has a government that can legally control its citizens, nor does it have one that can legally protect them. Consequently, it is a failed condition that eventually leads to some form of tyranny by not having the ability to prevent thugs and dictators from menacing or enslaving any individual or group they desire to menace or enslave. It essentially creates a society of mob, or tribal, warfare.

    As a result, the extreme right of the spectrum would contain a form of republicanism that ensures the greatest liberty for the individual. Such a government would be based on the concepts of absolute individual rights, a strictly and constitutionally limited political authority, and laissez-faire capitalism. Only laws that are essential for the protection of individual rights could be created in such a society.

    ReplyReply
  37. rich wheeler says: 37

    AYE Keyser’s posits “Right wing totalitarian regimes(Particularly the Nazis) have arisen in fairly advanced societies’”
    Right Wing “Individuals or groups who sometimes advocate the forced establishment of an authoritarian regime”
    Fascism “A system of govt that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right”
    Also said ” Obama may be more right wing than his minions can identify with”
    Again i’d suggest what the right or left wing philosophies may be are often tansformed by those in Power WHICH WE KNOW IS CORRUPTIVE BY NATURE.

    A. C. Enjoyed reading your #36

    ReplyReply
  38. Aye says: 38

    @rich wheeler:

    I see that you failed, once again, to answer my questions.

    This discussion is a perfect example of why most people here consider you to be a time waster.

    ReplyReply
  39. Nan G says: 39

    All this talk of Nazis and totalitarianism seems to be beside the point.
    Who has looked into the man’s ”manifesto?”
    Professor of Metaphysics and Ethics at Miskatonic University, Roland Shirk has.
    We are STILL not certain Anders Breivik actually penned the non-stolen portions of his manifesto, BUT IF he did, what does it tell us about him?
    It tells us a sadistic mass murderer extensively quoted a bunch of stuffy Burkeans!

    [T]he Intercollegiate Studies Institute; campus journalists like the Collegiate Network; measured critics of Islam like Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or. Indeed, the person serving as media scapegoat for Breivik’s atrocities, my friend Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch, is a mild-mannered scholar who urges only peaceful, constitutional activism.

    ………..

    [R]hetoric neither religious nor racialist; [but] grounded firmly in Enlightenment concepts of human rights.

    Breivik’s polemic against “cultural Marxism” reads more like a crib of learned historians like Paul Gottfried or John Lukacs than the fevered ravings of some Nordic neopagan killer.
    His critique of the European Union echoes those of tweedy, harmless British Tories.
    ……….
    Note that Breivik’s writings quote only the most sophisticated, non-violent, non-racist sources. There are plenty of neo-Nazis and racialists out there whom he could have cited………

    Professor Shirk wonders if Breivik was trying to smear all these people and institutions via association with HIMSELF!
    That’s an interesting idea.
    Especially since so little of Breivik’s manifesto was written by himself as opposed to stolen from others.
    I wonder if we will soon see some of Breivik’s writings from his home to compare with this manifesto?

    ReplyReply
  40. rich wheeler says: 40

    Aye I’m in good company. Enjoy the day.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  41. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 41

    Definitions and graphs are like statistics: They can be used, if not carefully, to support any argument.

    ReplyReply
  42. Ditto says: 42

    I think that confusion is in that the Nazi party came into power by producing specialized propaganda designed to appeal to staunch traditionalists and to German patriots, declaring that their goal was to make Germany a great world power again. Hitler’s party claimed to support capitalism yet also used class warfare to gain popular support. They also promised (truthfully,) that they would industrialize the nation which would create jobs. In a surprise to many German businessmen, the Nazi government nationalized manufacturing, (clearly the norm in all socialist forms of government,) and while modernizing the nation, soon steered the nation into building their military arsenal. (Some anti-war Democrats might confuse the latter with the Nazi’s being “right-wings” group, but the building up of war machines has nothing to do with society orientation.) The truth about the Nazi’s extreme fascist agenda was hidden until a few years after the party took power. The people began to get worried when the Nazi party created their civilian forces, referred to as “brown-shirts” and when they then began (again as all socialist governments do,) to indoctrinate the nation’s youth. (Seems another politician fairly recently advocated the building of a civilian corps as well funded as the military.) The Nazi’s approved of promiscuity, pornography and similar rejections of morality, and while they claimed to be religious (Hitler even attended a Catholic mass following his election,) yet in the words of Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, who noted:

    “The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”

    Clearly, any pretense of Hitler being a “Christian” w no more than posing, as many politicians will do to hold the support of the populous following an election. It was a later in 1935 that the Nazi’s began their main racist programs, targeting Gypsies and Jews. In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II . This is prima facia evidence that they were not Christian, but in fact anti-Christian, as they were anti-Jewish.

    ReplyReply
  43. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 43

    Since there was such an interest on this site in the Manifesto of the madman who killed so many in Norway, you might benefit from the last half of the program today on Democracy Now! broadcast several times during the day and night on FreeSpeechTV (also on the net at democracynow.com)

    ReplyReply
  44. rich wheeler says: 44

    Aye Do you think it FAIR to say fascism takes the social stance of the right and the economic programs of the left,combines it with a large dose of racism and created something we don’t have in America and will hopefully never see?

    ReplyReply
  45. Nan G says: 45

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):
    the more I learn about Anders Behring Breivik and his ”manifesto,” the more I think he’s a raving lunatic.
    Here’s one new point:

    ……Breivik said in his 1,500-page manifesto that he was mentored by a British man known as “Richard (the Lionhearted)” — and the leader of the far-right English Defense League [EDL] has told AP that “Richard” is Paul Ray, author of the blog “Lionheart.”

    But Ray, who split with the EDL years ago, denied any connection to Breivik.

    In a telephone interview from his home in Malta, Ray said he was not at a 2002 meeting in London which Breivik claims gave birth to a group called the Knights Templar of Europe, whose founders included himself and “Richard.”………
    Ray denied knowing Breivik and suggested the group had no formal structure.
    ……..
    It’s an idea,” Ray said. “It’s not like it’s a massive organization. It’s a belief.”

    But he denies he approved of Breivik’s methods, which include killing innocents to draw attention to his philosophy.

    “I’d like to express my deepest sympathy to the people of Norway and to the families who have lost children,” Ray said. “It’s a horrendous crime that has been committed by someone what goes beyond the realm of human understanding.”
    ……..
    Breivik has said the PCCTS, a Latin acronym for the Knights Templar, has several cells in Western countries and two more in Norway. In his manifesto, he claimed he sets the group’s agenda.
    ………
    Ray, who says he was born Paul Sonato but took his mother’s maiden name, denied ever having heard of the Norwegian before Friday’s massacres.

    “Being implicated in this, I just want the truth to come out and it proven that I’m nothing whatever to do with this,” Ray said.


    CBS News

    The order, Ray said, was set up in response to “Muslims in our country (England) trying to take over our country.”
    Gee, why would Ray think such a thing????

    A Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states.

    The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

    The Islamic Emirates Project, launched by the Muslims Against the Crusades group, names the British cities of
    Birmingham,
    Bradford,
    Derby,
    Dewsbury,

    Leeds,
    Leicester,
    Liverpool,
    Luton,
    Manchester,
    Sheffield,

    as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and
    Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

    ReplyReply
  46. Aye says: 46

    @rich wheeler:

    No. I fully reject that assertion.

    ReplyReply
  47. rich wheeler says: 47

    AYE O.K. Assuming we agree on most economic programs being left wing. Socially right wing include, anti-abortion rights,anti gay rights,against immigration of minorities into society and strong border enforcement,pro prayer in schools,extremely strong support of military,nationalistic,would surely oppose lib./prog programs like affirmative action.Exception pro-gun control. Just some thoughts.

    ReplyReply
  48. Nan G says: 48

    One thing Anders Behring Breivik and Islamist militants do NOT share in common is religiousity.
    Islamists do everything they do because they desire more Islam in the world, better Islam, purer (in their interpretation) Islam.
    Allegedly Anders Behring Breivik has a manifesto and, in it, he partly explains his relationship with Christianity.
    Here are a few quotes:

    I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. (p. 1344)

    Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. (p. 1307, 3.139)

    As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons.
    (p. 361)

    The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority).

    It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). (p. 361)

    Now, I’m a Christian.
    Nancy Pelosi is one also.
    But she and I disagree more than we agree on most things moral, ethical or even charitable.
    Anders Behring Breivik calls himself a CULTURAL Christian.
    He has no relationship with the God of the Bible, none with Jesus.
    But he values the European cultures that have emerged over the centuries.

    Who does Anders Behring Breivik seem to worship, if anyone/thing?
    Mother Earth.
    Mother nature.
    A few quotes showing this:

    For the last fifty years, the white race has arrogantly refused to obey these eternal laws and it will pay a heavy price unless it comes to realise the futility of continually fighting against Mother nature. King Canute realised it and other human races continue to realise it but whether or not the crack-brained Liberal-Multicultural disciples have the humility to realise their folly of battling with Mother nature is quite another matter.

    But be in no doubt whatsoever that Mother nature will demand they pay the heaviest price for their arrogance and she will not care one iota if the entire white race has to pay too. Mother nature knows not pity as even self-righteous Liberal-Multiculturalists will find to their cost, you can be completely assured of that. (p. 399)

    Should any person have the temerity to criticise any one of these “victim” groups, they will be viciously smeared and deemed guilty of numerous hate-crimes, the new heresy of the Liberal-Multicultural religion. The plain fact that this situation is destroying the west because it flies in the face of Mother nature – a catastrophic mistake only the native Europeans are committing – matters not a jot to these new pious inquisitors. (p. 391)

    All quotes from here;
    http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf

    ReplyReply
  49. Nan G says: 49

    @Nan G:

    Looks like Great Britain is not going to go down (to Sharia) without a fight.
    Scotland Yard is now working with local councils to remove the posters and identify those responsible for putting them up.

    Bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the “zone” there should be “no gambling”, “no music or concerts”, “no porn or prostitution”, “no drugs or smoking,” and “no alcohol”.

    Anjem Choudary has claimed, “We now have hundreds if not thousands of people up and down the country willing to go out and patrol the streets for us…”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-British-cities.html#ixzz1TMKacB00

    See the poster at the link.

    ReplyReply
  50. Nan G says: 50

    For all his talk and writing the truth now is coming out….Anders Behring Breivik is a sociopath who acted without accomplices or a network of like-minded right-wing extremists, and kept his plans to himself for more than a decade.
    According to an interrogator, Janne Kristiansen, “It’s a unique case. It’s unique person. He is total evil. This is all in his mind.”

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>