from Ted Rall’s Rallblog by Ted Rall
INDEX (full text of stories follow Democracy Now headlines)
from AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth by Gaius Publius
[Obama’s past concessions have] established in both Democrats’ and Republicans’ minds the thought that Obama was a weak negotiator—a “pushover.”
No news there, and in my mind, not true in the actual world (see below). But it is true in the ad-man world of “perception is reality,” the world of the easily fooled (look around; you see a few).
In that sense the “President Pushover” meme matters, and that’s what Obama’s selling himself as, whether he wants to or not. He still has this large hopey-changey aura from legions of our low information voters clinging to his cloak, but the noticing ones (early adopters of the next round of change) are dropping away rapidly.
The real news from Ms. Drew is her view of inside-the-White House thinking.
It all goes back to the “shellacking” Obama took in the 2010 elections. The President’s political advisers studied the numbers and concluded that the voters wanted the government to spend less. … [T]he political advisers believed that elections are decided by middle-of-the-road independent voters, and this group became the target for determining the policies of the next two years.
Note that those middle-of-the-road voters are the “easily fooled” mentioned above. (For more on low-information voters, read this from Chris Hayes; an eye-opener.)
Ignore the fact that this thinking has nothing to do with integrity, or ideas, or policy, or Audacity, or Hope; it’s pure what’s-best-for-me-now. Here’s Krugman on what’s wrong with this thinking from a political standpoint:
As I recall, two things happened last year: voters were angry about the weak economy, and older voters believed that Obama was going to take away their Medicare and send them to the death panels. And so the way to win those voters back is to cut Medicare and weaken the economy?
Exactly. If the Double Dip Fairy shows up (is that its little head just at the door?), and if the Republicans attack Obama on Social Security and Medicare (duh), all bets are off for 2012.
So what’s really going on? I think Ms. Drew is right in her analysis of insider White House thinking. I asked earlier if the GOP was trying to crash the economy on purpose. There are three players — the Obamas, the Boehners, and the Cantors (Tea Party players). Your analysis depends on whether you think it’s Obama & Boehner vs. the Tea Party, or Boehner & Tea Partiers vs. Obama.
My best guess is the former (Obama-Boehner) with the outcome vs. the Tea Party still in doubt. The Tea Party, I think, really does believe that the only apocalypse is the one in the book they worhsip, that Geithner can dance away from trouble for months if he has to. Obama and Boehner seem to be 99% agreed, with most of the fiddling being done on appearances. (Does Obama need to appear to forcenew revenue? Does Boehner need to appear to reject it?)
Me? I’m rooting for the Tea Party to force a last-minute clean bill, but I believe in the Happy Ending Fairy.
If all three players are in it together, we’re sunk. In that light, I found this from Digby to be very thoughtful. It’s from Michael Hudson speaking on KPFA radio (my emphases):
It’s a good cop-bad cop charade. The Republicans are playing the role of the bad cop. Their script says: “You cannot raise taxes on anybody. No progressive income tax, no closing of tax loopholes for special interests, not even prosecutions for tax fraud. And we can get a lot of money back into the economy if we give a tax holiday to the companies and individuals that have been keeping their money offshore. Let’s free the wealthy from taxes to help us recover.’
Mr. Obama can turn around and pretend to be the good cop. “Hey, boys, let me at least do something. I’m willing to cut back Social Security. I’m willing to take over what was George Bush’s program. I share your worries about the budget deficit. We have to balance it, and I’ve already appointed a Deficit Reduction Commission to prepare public opinion for my cutbacks in the most popular programs. But you have to let me get a little bit of revenue somewhere.”
In the end the Republicans will make some small token concessions, but they’ll get their basic program. Mr. Obama will have sold out his constituency.
Click here to see the interview audio link.
That’s the analysis that says that either Boehner–Obama–Tea Party are all play acting for our benefit (we’re screwed); or that Boehner–Tea Party will force President Pushover into the worst possible deal (we’re screwed). President Pushover or Deceiver-in-chief? It may not matter.
I’ve been thinking about this issue more since Friday’s
duel to the deathdiscussion with David Brooks, and have come to the conclusion that this is an even worse idea, on pure policy grounds, than even most liberals realize.
The usual argument against means-testing — which is entirely valid — is that it (a) doesn’t save much money and (b) messes up a relatively simple program. The reason it can’t save much money is that there are relatively few people rich enough to be able to afford major cost-sharing. Meanwhile, the good thing about Medicare, as with Social Security, is precisely that it doesn’t depend on your personal financial status — you just get it. Means-testing would turn it into something much more intrusive, like Medicaid.
But there’s a further point I haven’t seen emphasized: if you want the well-off to pay more, it’s just better to raise their taxes.
Wait, you say: won’t raising taxes reduce incentives to work and create wealth? Yes, it will (although such effects are greatly exaggerated in our political discourse.) But means-testing benefits does the same thing. Conservative economists love to point out that means-tested programs like food stamps in effect create high marginal tax rates for low-income families, since they lose benefits if they work and earn more. Well, means-testing Medicare would do the same thing: your reward for a life of hard work and accumulation will be higher copays and deductibles.
So what’s the difference between means-testing and just collecting a bit more taxes? The answer is, class warfare — not between the rich and poor, but between the filthy rich and the merely affluent. For a tax rise would get a significant amount of revenue from the very, very rich (because they have so much money), while means-testing would end up imposing the same burden on $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiffs that it imposes on billion-a-year hedge fund managers.
What we need is actual control of health costs. Means-testing of Medicare is just a badly designed, unfair form of taxation.
from AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth by Joe Sudbay (DC)
For the past few weeks, as the President has tried to secure a “grand bargain” with GOPers — to the point of offering up Social Security and Medicare — it’s been clear that there’s a political motivation. A report in today’s Washington Post lays it out:
Obama’s political advisers have long believed that securing such an agreement would provide an enormous boost to his 2012 campaign, according to people familiar with White House thinking. In particular, they want to preserve and improve the president’s standing among political independents, who abandoned Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections and who say reining in the nation’s debt is a high priority.
In many ways, it has been a remarkable transformation for a Democratic president who had made the centerpiece of his first year in office a massive spending bill to boost the economy and the expansion of health insurance.
The risk for Obama now is that his pursuit of a far-reaching package could deeply disappoint his Democratic allies who believe he may be giving away too much. By calculating that an ambitious plan to reduce the nation’s debt by $4 trillion over 10 years is so important, he’s willing to endanger one of the best weapons in his party’s arsenal — the argument that Democrats will protect Medicare and Social Security at all costs.
It’s so craven. But, that’s exactly what’s happening. In Obama’s quest for independent voters, he is willing to sacrifice core Democratic values. Apparently, Obama’s team of political geniuses believe that the Democratic base really doesn’t have any core beliefs either. Remember this, it was Obama who put Social Security and raising the age limit for Medicare into the bargain.
In a post that shows the chart of income inequity in this country, Digby writes:
it is depraved to cut social insurance and health care programs for people who are old and sick and cannot work. The idea that those people should be asked to “share” in the alleged sacrifice of millionaires who leave more money in the seats of their corporate jets than these people have left over at the end of the month is outrageous.
When that level of wealth inequality exists but the government insists that little old ladies be forced to “pay more” so they’ll be ” more responsible” (and call it shared sacrifice!) something has gone fundamentally wrong. Fix that, we fix the country.
Who knows where this will lead, but it seems depraved that a Democrat would run for reelection on a platform that would “cut social insurance and health care programs for people who are old and sick and cannot work.” If a GOP President proposed these changes, we’d be calling it was it is. The Democratic base would be apoplectic. But, for some reason, we’re all supposed to suck it up because a Democratic President is doing it. It’s just wrong.
from Mondoweiss by Alex Kane
A detailed manifesto reportedly written by the alleged perpetrator behind the Norway massacre was posted on the web yesterday by an American blogger. Titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” it sheds significant light on the virulent and extreme right-wing, anti-Islam and anti-immigrant ideology which appears to have fueled Anders Behring Breivik’s murder of over 90 people on Friday.
Anders Behring Breivik saw himself as a holy warrior and crusader engaged in a war against a “Marxist-Islamist alliance” that he feared would take over Europe if not stopped. He hoped by his actions to inspire “thousands” to follow in his path. He described himself as a “martyr” and “resistance fighter.”
He described members of Norway’s Labour Party as “traitors” because of their alleged support of “multiculturalism and Islamisation.” Behring advocated “terror” attacks on mosques, especially during Muslim relgious holidays.
This is according to a 1,500 page manuscript Breivik himself wrote. Norway’s public broadcaster NRK reported on the manuscript and that Breivik had admitted to writing and disseminating it (Google translation of NRK report).
In addition, the manuscript provides a more detailed look at how Breivik’s strong support for extremist Israeli policies fits into his worldview. Professed throughout the manifesto is a motif of unwavering support for Israel–a key component of Breivik and his ilk’s ideology–in addition to support for the mass deportations of Arabs and Muslims from Israel/Palestine. Here are some examples taken from an English translation of the manuscript written by Breivik:
Let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged, and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel…(page 338)
I believe Europe should strive for:
A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are…(page 661)
As part of a “draft” for a so-called “European Declaration of Independence,” Breivik also writes:
A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide
Max Blumenthal succintly explains here why Israel occupies such a central role in the Islamophobic far-right’s imagination:
While in many ways Breivik shares core similarities with other right-wing anti-government terrorists, he is the product of a movement that is relatively new, increasingly dangerous, and poorly understood. I described the movement in detail in my “Axis of Islamophobia” piece, noting its simultaneous projection of anti-Semitic themes on Muslim immigrants and the appeal of Israel as a Fort Apache on the front lines of the war on terror, holding the line against the Eastern barbarian hordes. Breivik’s writings embody this seemingly novel fusion, particularly in his obsession with “Cultural Marxism,” an increasingly popular far-right concept that positions the (mostly Jewish) Frankfurt School as the originators of multiculturalism, combined with his call to “influence other cultural conservatives to come to our…pro-Israel line.”
Breivik and other members of Europe’s new extreme right are fixated on the fear of the “demographic Jihad,” or being out-populated by overly fertile Muslim immigrants. They see themselves as Crusader warriors fighting a racial/religious holy war to preserve Western Civilization. Thus they turn for inspiration to Israel, the only ethnocracy in the world, a country that substantially bases its policies towards the Palestinians on what its leaders call “demographic considerations.” This is why Israeli flags invariably fly above black-masked English Defense League mobs, and why Geert Wilders, the most prominent Islamophobic politician in the world, routinely travels to Israel to demand the forced transfer of Palestinians.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency also picks up the story in an article today, “Norway killer espoused new right-wing, pro-Israel philosophy”:
The confessed perpetrator in the terror attack in Norway espoused a new right-wing philosophy allied with Israel against Islam – a trend in European populist and far-right movements that has Israel worried…
European right-populist parties increasingly have been waving the flag of friendship with Israel. Last month, after it emerged that German-Swedish far-right politician Patrik Brinkmann had met in Berlin with Israeli Likud lawmaker Ayoub Kara, deputy minister for Development of the Negev and Galilee, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Kara be prevented from making further trips abroad.
According to Ynet, Lieberman accused Kara of meeting with neo-Nazis and causing damage to Israel’s image. Brinkman said he had reached out to Israeli rightists hoping to build a coalition against Islam
There are supporters of Israel who refuse to acknowledge the central role right-wing Zionism plays in the current attempt to gin up anti-Muslim sentiment. But the actions and words of Breivik, and those from whom he drew inspiration, make clear that it is imperative to acknowledge, understand and combat what Blumenthal aptly calls the “axis of Islamophobia.”
Targeted Labour gathering on Norwegian island reportedly featured gestures of Palestinian solidarity
The Norwegian press reports that the Utoya Island Youth Meeting that was attacked by the rightwing madman (allegedly, yes!) featured a boycott Israel event– I am told earlier in the same week. And that a Norwegian minister visited and supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Sorry about the clunky link, my laptop aint making hypertext:
And Spengler’s forum, a rightwing site, says that meeting participants in boats were enacting a run on the Gaza blockade.
How many more home grown right wing extremists are out there on both sides of the Atlantic? BBC News:
The man accused of a massacre at a youth camp in Norway and a bombing in the capital, Oslo, has admitted responsibility, his lawyer says.
Anders Behring Breivik, 32, described his actions as “gruesome but necessary”, and said he would explain himself at a court hearing on Monday.
At least 85 people died when a gunman ran amok on Utoeya island on Friday, hours after an Oslo bomb killed seven.
As Norway mourned the victims, police continued to search for the missing.
At least four people from the island camp shooting are yet to be found; it is thought some may have drowned after swimming out into the lake to escape the hail of bullets.
The BBC now claims 97 people are confirmed dead. Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloid, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal both do their best to promote the attack as an al-Qaeda attack. Clever job again by Team Murdoch.
“But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn’t from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller’s Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks.
“If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda,” said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.
Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn’t, even when it’s allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. TheNYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bombhad it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.
Then there’s this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT — first noticed by Richard Silverstein — explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:”. (thanks Rob)
LABOR / THE ECONOMY
from Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place by Richard Silverstein
The death toll from the savage attack in Norway has risen to 92 today. Anders Breivik, a radical rightist who posted regularly to a neo-Nazi internet forum, is the only suspect arrested so far in the killings. Electronic Intifada published excerpts of a 1,500 page magnum opus written by Breivik which portray his political philosophy. Here, CNN covers the story of manifesto from a slightly different vantage than the one below. For example, given the killer’s use of steroids and testosterone supplements, one speculates on the role they may’ve played in his rage-filled spree.
Chief among his enemies are Muslims and those non-Muslims who, in his mind, facilitate the triumph of Islam in the west. That’s why he specifically attacked the seat of national government and a youth camp sponsored by the ruling Labor Party. The Norwegian terrorist has an obsession with Marxism, and apparently equates the current left of center government with that ideology. Alex Kane notes that the day before the attack on the island camp, it held a Palestine solidarity rally (an event which would’ve repelled the killer). He viewed the country’s leaders as aiding and abetting Muslim terror, and multiculturalism as the poison by which Islam could spread itself throughout the west.
In his writings, he expresses the belief that one glorious act of terror could foment a huge Muslim counter-reaction which would allow a rightist coup to take over both Norwegian and European governments. The only problem with this scenario is that he attacked Norwegian targets and not Muslims ones. That’s what is most inexplicable about this incident. Given his hatred of Islam and his belief that it is at the core of the rot that affects the world, why wouldn’t he target Norwegian Muslims? That’s doubtless something the investigators have asked him during interrogation.
Breivik viewed Israel as an ally in the war against Islam. Alex Kane tweets that he wrote:
“Let’s end stupid support for Palestinians…start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel.”
He also wrote this:
Cultural conservatives believe Israel has a right to protect itself against Jihad…Sensible people should support Zionism (Israeli nationalism) which is Israel’s right to self-defence against Jihad.
More excerpts from his manifesto:
* If one acknowledges that Islam has always oppressed the Jews, one accepts that Israel was a necessary refuge for the Jews fleeing not only the European but also the Islamic variety of anti-Judaism.
* Since the break-up of the Islamic Empire following World War I, various jihads have been fought around the globe by the independent Muslim nations and sub-state jihadist groups. The most sustained effort has been directed against Israel, which has committed the unpardonable sin of rebuilding dar al-harb on land formerly a part of dar al-Islam.
* How can anyone delete the horror of Muslim oppression over Christians and Jews which lasted for centuries and stretched over continents?
* Western Journalists again and again systematically ignore serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews, [which] only adds to the stockpile of proof that all Western journalists support the EU’s Eurabia project, [and] their enemy (based on coverage) is the Israeli…government…
* Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that oppose nationalism/Zionism and support multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists….So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE, while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP. Whenever I discuss the Middle East issue with a national socialist he presents the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine argument. He always seem unaware of the fact that his propaganda is hurting Israeli nationalists (who want to deport the Muslims from Israel) and that he is in fact helping the Israeli cultural Marxists/multiculturalists with his argumentation.
Ali Abunimah notes he especially admires Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beitenu Party. Outside Israel, he also follows the writing of Pam Geller, Robert Spencer (referenced 46 times in the Breivik manifesto) and Daniel Pipes (11 times). Yesterday, I quoted a Norwegian website which claimed that Breivik had identified himself as Fjordman, a regular contributor to the anti-jihadi blogs mentioned above. Geller has denied a connection, as has Gates of Vienna, and it’s possible they are right. I haven’t seen definitive evidence that either proves Breivik and Fjordman are the same or that they aren’t. I will say though that Breivik’s writings under his own name show a much greater predilection toward violence; Fjordman’s, while equally radical, seem satisfied to remain in the realm of political theory, rather than action.
But even if they are not one and the same, the fact that Breivik’s intellectual-political philosophy is inspired by each of them is a sign of the cesspool of hate found there. Just as settler rabbis held apulsa di nura excommunicating Yitzhak Rabin before his assassination; just as Bibi Netanyahu fired up a crowd featuring pictures of Yitzhak Rabin dressed in an SS uniform shortly before the assassination, so did the intellectual content of these websites shape the world-view of the assassin.
I do not want to even think about what I would do if someone who’d praised or linked favorably to my work went on a murderous spree. I’d like to think that the very nature of my beliefs would militate against violence. But I sure as hell know I wouldn’t do what Geller’s done, which is to completely avoid any serious deliberation or reflection on the issue. She’s not responsible she writes in a post about mass murder which is rather inappropriately titled, Heads Explode. Rather “the left” is responsible for associating her in any way with the violence:
This is war. And the left is vicious, amoral and depraved. They mean to win, and that is the only way they know how.
Indeed, Anders Breivik couldn’t have put it any better himself. As for me, I’d certainly denounce the deed and its author if they praised me, something I doubt you’ll hear from the keyboards of Pam Geller, Spencer or Pipes.
To give you an impression of the depths of self-delusion such pathological types are capable of, note this self-portrait:
I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues. Due to the fact that I have been exposed to decades of multicultural indoctrination I feel a need to emphasise that I am not in fact a racist and never have been.
The “laid back, quite tolerant” mass murderer. A new personality type in the annals of deviant psychology.
from Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place by Richard Silverstein
Hitler had his Jewish problem. Anders Breivik, his Muslim problem. The more I read of Breivik’s manifesto, A European Declaration of Independence, the more it appears to me a latter-day version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Remember that when the dictator-to-be wrote his magnum opus he had not yet devised the formula for the Final Solution. He knew what the problem was (Jews) and had some ideas about how to deal with it, but he hadn’t come up with the policy of genocide adopted at the 1942 Wansee Conference. So Breivik sees clearly that the problem for Europe is Muslims (rather than Jews). They are the common “foreign” body infecting the pure western European gene pool. But Breivik hasn’t yet developed a genocidal policy to accompany this realization. He only states that Muslims must be removed from Europe (and the western world, including Israel), not that they must be exterminated.
But given that Breivik forecast that his right-wing revolution would not succeed till 2083, we can only wonder at what sort of Final Solution there would be for the Muslim problem in Europe by then.
While Breivik’s views in one major particular diverge from those of Hitler, in many other ways they mirror each other precisely. As for the difference, Breivik only sees SOME Jews as the problem. Those are the Marxist Jews in the Diaspora and Israel, the ones embracing multiculturalism. They are the enemy. But the Norwegian neo-Nazi views Zionist Israel, as represented by anti-jihadis like Avigdor Lieberman, as what he calls “cultural cousins.” Israel is the far-right’s friend in this view because this is a nation that hates Islam and will expel the Muslims living within it.
Interestingly, John Hagee’s views of Jews and Israel are very similar. Hagee too believes that secular Jews and Jewish political leftists are the enemies of Christianity and the ones who will die in the End Times. Israel, that is Zionist Israel living out the Biblical dream, will survive in his world view. They will be the saving remnant, and of course the group that will eventually turn to accept Jesus as Christ. Hagee’s best friends in Israel, the settlers and political leaders like Avigdor Lieberman, are precisely the ones admired most by Breivik.
Hitler too railed against Jewish Bolsheviks and saw them as the heart of all evil. Perhaps had Hitler lived to see the creation of the State of Israel he too might’ve modified his views about Jews (or conversely, had Hitler lived there might never have been a State of Israel). At any rate, Muslims play the same role Jews did for Hitler in the Breivik universe. They are the irredeemably evil.
But interestingly, while Hitler chose to attack Jews unmercifully almost from the beginning of his political career, Breivik chose not to attack Muslims physically at all. Instead, he chose to attack the heart of the ‘Marxist multicultural’ beast, Norway’s ruling party and institutions of state. To his mind, the rightist revolution would resonate most with an attack on the soft underbelly of the state, rather than on the nation’s Muslims. For Breivik, Marxists like those of the Norwegian Labor Party and the hated European Union, are collaborators with the Muslim enemy. The former are the ones who will enable to latter to overrun Europe. And because these collaborators are white Christians like himself, they are race traitors. All of which probably justifies attacking them, before going on to ‘getting the job done’ against Muslims. Here is his underlying thinking on the subject:
Why armed resistance against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe is the only rational approach
Multiculturalism, like drugs, is an insidious weapon. Both destroy the heart and fabric of a people. All ties to family, community, and one’s people as a whole are destroyed by these two opiates of the human mind. Both are sponsored from the top down by one world elitists bent upon creating a world order who’s power is such that its subjects posses no potential for resistance.
…War or armed resistance has traditionally always been used as a last resort, when dialogue has proven to ineffective. The justification for use of armed resistance against the European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist systems is tied to the outlook for cultural conservative political success. You have to ask yourself; is it remotely possible under the current conditions that a conservative, monocultural political party will ever gain substantial political influence? An increasing number of Europeans are opening their eyes to the reality that the democratical struggle through dialogue has been lost. The cultural Marxists have institutionalised multiculturalism and have no intention of ever allowing us to exercise any political influence of significance. In theory we, the cultural conservatives of Europe, have become slaves under an oppressive, tyrannical, extreme left-wing system with absolutely no hope of reversing the damage they have caused. At least not democratically..
Breivik made common cause with other European far-rightist groups like the English Defense League (whose name may be a deliberate echo of the Jewish Defense League), Geert Wilders and others. One factor that they all share is pro-Israelism. For them, the enemy of my (Muslim) enemy is my friend. That’s precisely why Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Bat Yeor and other Jewish anti- jihadis find the European far-right so attractive. And it’s a reason why all of them are so dangerous. Not in the way that Breivik is physically dangerous. But intellectually and politically dangerous. Scott Shane wrote an interesting story about this today in the Times.
The Norwegian mass-murderer may’ve killed regardless of whether Geller et al. existed. But his certitude in his cause and the intellectual underpinnings of it come from them. Without them, he may’ve just been a malcontent searching for a cause. With them, he had a cause to live and die–and kill others–for.
Yesterday, I identified a number of interesting quotations from the Breivik manifesto and excerpted them in a post. I’ve continued my review and there are several more quotations I’d like to offer. This deals with the issue of expulsion of Muslims from Europe with a clear parallel to the policy of transfer advocated by Israeli nationalist rightists (including Lieberman, though in a slightly more refined articulation). The call to action that concludes it is chilling and reveals that all that separates Breivik from Geller, Spencer et al. is the former’s willingness to take up arms, while the the latter do everything but:
Future deportations of Muslims from Europe
“It’s difficult to discuss deportation of Muslims openly in a society where it is not even allowed to discuss Islam…”
The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe – Fjordman, Spencer, Ye’or, Bostom etc. aren’t actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe. If these authors are to scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.
Here Breivik outlines the need to rid oneself of the human impulse for mercy in this Christian conservative revolutionary jihad. This passage distills his method to its pure essence:
The process of destroying and replacing the current cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe will not be easy or painless….
As a Justiciar Knight you are operating as a jury, judge and executioner on behalf of all free Europeans. Never forget that it is not only your right to act against the tyranny of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe, it is your duty to do so. There are situations in which cruelty is necessary, and refusing to apply necessary cruelty is a betrayal of the people whom you wish to protect.
The preferred method is to attack in a violent and deceptive form (shock attack), usually with limited forces (1-2 individuals). Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike. Explain what you have done (in an announcement distributed prior to operation) and make certain that everyone understands that we, the free peoples of Europe, are going to strike again and again. Do not apologise, make excuses or express regret for you are acting in self-defence or in a preëmptive manner. In many ways, morality has lost its meaning in our struggle. The question of good and evil is reduced to one simple choice. For every free patriotic European, only one choice remains:Survive or perish. Some innocent will die in our operations as they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Get used the idea. The needs of the many will always surpass the needs of the few.
In a subsequent passage, Breivik notes that the number of acceptable dead in this revolutionary coup d’état would be 45,000 (with 1-million wounded), which corresponds, in his delusional mind, to the numbers that the Marxist political élite have killed in their drive for continental dominance. He notes that some conservatives also include in the number of those killed aborted fetuses, which raises the number to 2-million.
In this terrorist’s universe, the goal of overturning the Eurabian regime justifies use of weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons, which he goes to great lengths to specify. He even speculates on the possibility of negotiating with Israel (noting that Israeli nationalists would be most likely to be sympathetic to his cause) for access to nuclear weapons though he concedes that Israel is unlikely to do so until it sees clear signs that his revolution is nearing success.
from Mondoweiss by Tord Steiro
Tord Steiro is a Mondo reader in Norway, and writes:
Regarding the tragedy we are now living through. Let me clarify a few facts:
1. The organization targeted in Utøya is AUF – the Labour Party’s youth organization. In recent years, this organization has been increasingly critical of the Labour Party’s alleged ‘pro-Israel’ line. Hence, a stand in solidarity with Palestine is present. However, there are many such stands on the island, during the camp. West-Sahara is usually present, and so is anti-war activists. NPA – Norwegian Peoples Aid, is usually there too, together with the usual bunch of domestic political causes. Perhaps especially the central labour union, LO. This was a political gathering for youth members in the Labour Party, and not in any way a gathering focusing on I/P issues. Except that they would be on the agenda together with any other interesting political issue.
2. The pictures on Spengler are wrong. [http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=17351&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight&sid=5dc81da376cc189913bee85754fbe7bc] Fair enough, the picture featuring the stand and the minister of foreign affairs Mr. Støre are real enough, while the picture of the [Gaza] boat is misplaced. It was taken last year, at the youth camp of the socialist youth. A youth organization to left of AUF. Hence, the following passage:
The main activity at the Utoya Island Meeting were mock “Break the Israel blockade” games. One event was Palestinian aide boats would try to break the Israel blockage. Whoever gets through first wins. The sign says “defeat the blockade” (opphev blokkaden – Gaza)
Is obviously wrong.
3. The gunman is a strong advocate for Israel, and stands behind much of the same rhetoric as we hear from the other usual suspects in the Zionist camp. The gunman looks at multi-culturalism as the greatest threat to Europe, and advocates in favour of segregated nation states.
And, for the record, it is appalling to see how the international media spun the Islamic terror card. The police kept denying Islamic terrorism from the very beginning, and we had very clear witness description of the gunman early Friday evening. The police stressed that they had solid evidence to connect the two incidents from early Friday morning. Yet, still, the international media played the ‘blame-the-Muslims’ circus for hours – even days. De facto supporting the gunman’s point of view.
Scott Shane in the New York Times, “Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in the U.S.” (no link, my laptop aint loading em):
Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”
from Informed Comment by Juan
Norwegian right wing Christian terrorist Anders Breivik spoke of being a member of the “Knights Templar,” and if anything is further terrorizing about Friday’s attacks beyond their own horror, it is the possibility that an organization was behind them or that there are other members of it as looney and violent as Breivik himself. Likely it was just a conceit, or the other members are not as maniacal as Breivik. The name, of course, refers to the medieval order coming out of the Crusades.
Breivik visited Malta, where the remnants of the real Knights Templar, having turned their resources over to the Knights of St. John the Hospitaller, had run a pirate mini-state for a few hundred years in the early modern period. Breivik, from a Protestant background, advocated a return to Catholicism, but not to the really-existing current church, rather to a pan-Christian revival of a Crusade theocracy.
The Crusade, he insisted, was necessary because in ten years Muslims would be a majority in most of Europe and they were raping Christian girls. The fear of brown men raping Norwegian women is of course the ultimate in iconic racism, redolent of Jim Crow in the Old South.
The myth about rape in Oslo is debunked here. The argument has the form of bad statistics. It is alleged that Muslims are only 4% of the population in Norway but are responsible for almost all the rapes. First of all, the allegation is untrue. But consider this: most rapes happen in big cities, where anonymity affords more opportunity for subsequent escape. Immigrants are mostly in cities and are a bigger proportion of the urban population than they are of the general population. Then, rapists tend to be young, and recent immigrants groups are disproportionately young. Then, rape is more common in low-income areas, and, you guessed it, immigrants are poorer. So if you studied rape among poor urban youth, it may well be that Muslims commit fewer rapes than would be statistically expected, in that demographic group (the relevant one). Moreover, a lot of the victims of rape would also be poor, urban, young immigrant women.
This wicked fantasy that most European rapists are Muslim immigrants is a staple of the far right, and it has contributed to hatred and violence toward European Muslims. This theme, like many Muslim-hating canards, appears to have been started by McCarthyite Daniel Pipes, a far right Zionist who “watches” American academics that do not toe Breivik’s sort of line at an invasion-of-privacy enterprise ominously called ‘Campus Watch’; and given the turn to violence among people of Breivik’s stripe, it is only a matter of time until Pipes’s organization whips some kindred looney into a homocidal frenzy against those liberal, multi-cultural, Muslim-coddling professors– so like the people at the Labor Party meet on Utoya. And why would Pipes be writing about rape in Scandinavia anyway? It is because people who want to steal more Palestinian land think that they can run cover for the often fanatical and violent West Bank settlers by scaring white people into thinking Muslims in general are a threat and should be discounted, and that if they get kicked out of their homes they’re just getting what they deserve.
So back to the “Knights Templar.” They grew out of the Crusades, which was a murderous and unprovoked attack of European, Latin Christians on Byzantine Greek Orthodox, on Jews, and on Muslims in the Levant, involving sordid episodes like the ‘Children’s crusade’ and the slitting of the throats of all Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem when it first fell. (The Muslim riposte under Saladin was considerably more ambiguous, involving Christian alliances and internecine Sunni Muslim fighting).
The Knights ironically fell victim to the very Christian fanaticism that provoked the Crusades in the first place, being accused of heresy by the Inquisition, tried, and largely disbanded. Some off their considerable assets (deriving in part from plunder) were given to a kindred organization, the Knights of St. John the Hospitaller, who eventually were kicked out of Rhodes by the Ottoman Empire and continued their activities, including piracy, on the island of Malta, which they took over.
I told the story in Napoleon’s Egypt of how the Knights of St. John on Malta met their demise at the hands of Napoleon Bonaparte, who took the island on his way to conquering Egypt.
Bonaparte made Malta into a French-style Republic, declared the Rights of Man, dispossessed the Church, including the Knights, most of whom were repatriated to Europe and some of whom joined the Republican army. He freed some 2,000 Muslim slaves held on the island, who had been kidnapped on the high seas by the Knights, and he wrote to the Bey of Tunis boasting of this favor he had done for Islam.
Bonaparte was the rhetorical originator of Breivik’s nightmare, a proposed alliance of Enlightenment, Reason with an alleged pure, democratic, Deist-style monotheism of Islam. The general even hinted around that he had converted or would convert to Islam, along with his troops, in an attempt to win the clerics of the al-Azhar seminary over. (The clerics were not that gullible).
Two things were going on here. It would be wrong to dismiss the universalism of the French Republic. The French memoirs of Egypt seldom doubt that Egyptians are perfectly capable of becoming modern Republicans, and there were even plans for Egyptian units in the Republican army. It was assumed that they would delight in the Rights of Man once they were liberated from the tyranny of sultans and slave-soldiers. Enlightenment ideals of individual rights and liberty, which included a liberty to practice Islam under French Republican rule, were part of the reason for which the sullen sectarianism of the Knights had to be abolished.
A less idealistic second cause was at work. Liberal European imperialism, which aimed at dominating the Muslim world, had to have at least correct relations with Islam and Muslim authorities. That is another reason that the medieval Crusading knights admired by Breivik had to go. It isn’t practical to continue to flail about with Crusades when there is money to be made by cooperating with people in Cairo and Jakarta. There is a less pathological, post-colonial version of this motivation for tolerance, which is simply global commerce that (properly regulated) can benefit everyone on the planet, and global cooperation on common challenges such as climate change.
Most European colonial authorities in subsequent decades were hostile to Christian missionaries and wanted to persuade the locals that they were not in fact being ruled by Christian white people, though the locals appear never quite to have been convinced. Christian Europeans went on to conquer and rule over almost all the world’s Muslims– the Dutch in Indonesia, the British in Malaya, what is now Bangladesh (1757-1947) and Pakistan and India (now 12 percent Muslim), the French in most of Muslim North and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.
This history of hundreds of years of European conquest and rule of, and emigration to, the Muslim world is what makes it so ironic that people like Breivik now are driven to homocidal rage by 170,000 Muslims being in Norway, and fear that they may influence European law and custom. Yet most law, administration and other aspects of life in most Muslim countries have been decisively shaped by Europeans very much of Breivik’s background, in some instances for centuries. In fact, the Europeans actually did do to the Palestinians in British Mandate Palestine exactly what Breivik bizarrely fears Muslims will do to Norwegians in Norway, and most Palestinians haven’t even replied with violence.
from Mondoweiss by Eleanor Kilroy
Tabloid Watch has a post on the British newspaper The Sun‘s initial response to the right-wing terror attack in Norway that left more than 90 people dead. Tabloid Watch shows that the initial version of an editorial was deleted from the website of the Murdoch paper, and the ‘new’ version contains no mention of the fact it has been amended.
Today the paper’s line is that ‘madman’ Anders Breivik was a Nazi. With no discernible tone of irony, a paper that is proudly right-wing and Islamophobic, alludes to the alleged Norwegian terrorist’s ‘war’ on The Sun‘s very own targets, before quickly moving on to a fascist ideology that supposedly all of ‘Western civilisation’ can – belatedly – agree on hating. Why not just call him Hitler and be done with it:
“In 1,500 hate-filled pages, the warped Norwegian declared war on Muslims and left-wingers – and threatened to help bring down Western civilisation by the year 2083. Breivik – who honed his terror skills at camps run by neo-Nazis called The Vikings – told how he built an arsenal of guns and kept a huge explosives cache at an isolated farm.”
The sections in bold are the words removed from the current online version of Saturday’s article:
Stand strong with Norway
Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.
Terrorism, the scourge of the West, brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe’s most peaceful nations.
The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.
How well we remember, from London’s 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer’s day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.
Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.
Why Norway? The answer is simple.
Because it is brave. It is a loyal member of NATO and plays its part in Afghanistan and Libya.
It has courageously stood up to Muslim fanatics trying to stir up hatred in Norway, where Islam is the second largest religion.
Recently it refused a grant to an Islamic leader demanding that those who did not observe Ramadan should be decapitated.
By daring to oppose terrorism, Norway has become a victim of it.
The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.
We do not know if yesterday was the work of al-Qaeda, which has threatened Norway before, or Libyan madman Gaddafi, who has vowed revenge on NATO. Last night one extremist Islamic group had already claimed responsibility.
The lesson for us are clear.
Osama Bin Laden may be dead. But the tentacles of al-Qaeda, and groups linked to it, spread deep into the heart of Western nations.
That is why our security cannot be relaxed, especially with the London Olympics only a year away.
The Government must keep its promise to change the law so our judges can no longer free terror suspects on human rights grounds.
Muslim hate preachers must be arrested, as the law allows. We need the decent Muslim majority to help stop their impressionable young men being recruited as bombers.
We must find every penny our security services need.
We must ask ourselves whether – like Norway – we offer too cushy a life to bogus asylum seekers.
And we must recognise that quitting Afghanistan with the job only half-finished will put Britain in peril…
It’s not just the News Corp team that needs to be cleaned up. The London Metropolitan Police have had serious problems for a long time. The Guardian:
Survivors of the 2005 London bombings have asked lawyers to investigate allegations that Scotland Yard “sold” or passed on the confidential contact list of the 7 July victims to reporters working for News International.
Beverli Rhodes, chair of the Survivors’ Coalition Foundation, said that a number of 7/7 victims suspected that personal contact details, including mobile phone and ex-directory landline numbers as well as home addresses, were passed by officers to News of the World journalists.
The former security consultant, who specialised in counter-terrorism, said she had been contacted by a number of survivors of the bombings who said they had been approached by News of the World reporters with bogus stories of how they obtained their details, which they believe may have originated with the police.