Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/31/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/31/2011The U.S. Senate failed to pass Majority Leader Harry Reid’s measure that would have raised the debt limit. Although they commanded a majority, Senate Democrats lacked the 60 votes necessary for a procedural vote to end a Republican filibuster. However, a compromise was reportedly later reached that will allow both houses to agree, and thus prevent a default before Tuesday’s deadline.

In other news, two Muslim teenagers in London pleaded guilty to criminal damage for spray-painting burkas on sexy models in advertising posters.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Egghead, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Comments are still closed.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Thoughts on the Massacre in Norway and its Aftermath

In the wake of the Oslo atrocities, our Austrian correspondent AMT has sifted the punditry of the local media to produce an outline of the new campaign against “hate preachers” now building in Austria.

Oslo aftermath

Thoughts on the Massacre in Norway and its Aftermath

by AMT

The crap-o-meter has reached truly epic heights in the nine days since the atrocities in Oslo and on Utøya island. The following is a round-up from an Austrian perspective, in no particular order.

When the attacks became public, everyone immediately blamed some fringe group of Misunderstanders of Islam. In fact, an Islamic group or two started celebrations of their own. A stark reminder of the 9/11 attacks, after which the not-yet-“Islam-is-a-Religion-of-Peace”-infected TV crews found thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets praising Allah.

But that scenario was not to be. Tragically (deaths caused by representatives of the Religion of Peace are not tragic?), the accused perpetrator turned out to be what the European MSM and the European Union have “always” known to be the most dangerous part of the political spectrum: the right wing, with its extremism, anti-Muslim sentiment, anti-EU sentiment. A witch-hunt such as never seen before began. The media and dependent caste of politicians were found at the forefront.

In Austria, chancellor Faymann (SPÖ) and vice-chancellor Spindelegger (ÖVP) sat down for a double-page interview in Kurier in full agreement that hate preachers must be stopped and a charter against hate speech should be discussed and later adopted, echoing demands made by the Greens party. The ministers of justice and interior chimed in that there should be even more data collection on the internet in order to prevent future attacks. In addition, those who approve of terrorist acts (what is the definition of such an act?) should be prosecuted. The chairman of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism asked for more legal power to catch those responsible for future attacks. These are truly frightening prospects.

In line with the search for “ideological” supporters of Anders Behring Breivik, the media tried hard to hunt down supporters of the Counterjihad network, which until last week was largely unknown, and now all of a sudden was reputed to be the most dangerous network around.

Never mind Al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Hizb-ut-Tahrir: a group of known and unknown individuals who champion free speech, the rule of law, democracy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as opposed to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam) are currently a threat to—— to whom or what exactly? A group of people that includes a Danish man of Iranian descent who says the following:

It causes pain in my heart that here in Europe I am the constant witness of indifference and a misunderstood perception of realities. It constitutes terror to listen to intellectual opinion leaders, people who have never experienced even one day of repression, even politicians who ought to side with freedom and feel strong responsibility for democracy, that they in the name of Goodness protect Khomeini and his successors’ right to perpetrate their world view.

When, in the name of tolerance, one does not feel entitled to fight the mindset behind burqas and headscarves, and when, in the name of a ‘multicultural society’, one supports religious law and just recently an Iranian funded grand mosque, this does not constitute tolerance. This is an act of treason, a mockery of the thousands who already have sacrificed their lives fighting for freedom. […]

By upholding our belief in universal values and the required courage to sacrifice ourselves for these values, we can overcome the tyranny and free the slaves of the world. We need courage to ask decisive questions and expose the despots in a timely fashion. This is the only way we can avoid repeating the horrors of Hitler. […]

Freedom is priceless and can never be bought. Peace, on the other hand, one can purchase, by selling feta cheese or by selling out ones fundamental values. Azadi is the word for freedom in Persian. It is the most beautiful word I know. I believe the word ‘freedom’ rings beautiful in any language.

Freedom is not merely a word used in touching musicals such as Les Miserables or exciting action movies about World War II. Freedom is the foundation for humankind. Freedom is timeless. As are the enemies of freedom. They exist in all times and manifest either in the strict uniforms of political ideologies or religious turbans and burqas.


Freedom can never be repressed. It will always penetrate even the most secure walls. Freedom is like a small plant which, with the patience of a Zen master, works its way up and penetrates the cement.

European political parties that are not part of the left-wing political spectrum, along with their voters, have been accused by leftists, especially the MSM, of being “right-wing extremist, neo-Nazis, right-wing ideologues who are also racist anti-immigrant Islam-haters.” Take your pick, as any combination of the above is valid.

Farshad Kholgi has this to say to the lovers of peace and harmony:

“Is it ‘right-wing’ to stand for women’s rights? Is it ‘right-wing’ to criticize religion? Is it ‘right-wing’ to defend freedom of expression? Is it ‘right-wing’ to defend the right of the individual over that of the ideology? If so, then yes, I present right-wing political views.”

No more needs to be said here.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Austrian media were “successful” in finally finding their ideological perpetrator, right here at home! It is “the icon of the international right-wing extremism and Islam-haters”, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Our very own! Isn’t that something? We’re part of this! The shock! The horror!

It didn’t really work out the way the media wanted it to. After what must have been a laborious all-nighter poring over everything ever written or said by ESW, not one journalist presented a word of what she stands for. If they had, they would have had to publish something like this:

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat. [speech Paris]

In her statement to the media, ESW said she was a “woman of words.” Examine her words, for the Austrian MSM has so far not done so:

If we do not reclaim our basic rights — including the most important right of all, the right to speak freely — our civilization will be destroyed. All of our great institutions, including democracy and the rule of law, are made possible by the fundamental human rights that we all used to take for granted. [Luton]

I advise you not to burn the Koran, but to read it. Only by studying what Islam stands for will we learn how to face it down.

Know your enemy. We do not fight him with knives or guns, but with the pen, the microphone, the video camera, and the printing press. Understanding what Islam means is our greatest weapon in the struggle against it. We do not need any intimidation or bullying, because the truth is on our side. [Luton]

Pro-EU political indoctrination was and is extremely successful, especially among youth and university students, who are taught that the EU is great, the savior of all problems, and without it there would be disaster and war. Politicians, such as former Italian president Giorgio Napolitano (in German only) or the former Austrian parliamentary president Andreas Khol, even label EU critics as “terrorists”. [ACT 2010]

If this is right-wing extremism, what constitutes center-right thoughts?

If ESW and others are hate preachers, what is the legal definition of a hate preacher?

If words are considered “ammunition” (as was reported by Kurier), what are the above words? Cannons? Whom are they fired against?

Is daring to uphold democratic values and ideals right-wing extremism?

Are socialists afraid of democracy, the rule of law, equality of the sexes (which they, ironically, championed in 1968 and beyond)?

An “expert” on “right-wing extremism”, Heribert Schiedel, argues in this article “that Sabaditsch-Wolff did not intentionally provide this intellectual ammunition. I cannot blame her for anything that she said prior [to the Oslo attacks]. But now she could take responsibility and distance herself. From now on, she must always consider the fact that people are reading what she wrote in addition to what her words might cause.”

Let us recapitulate: According to Schiedel, ESW should actually distance herself from democracy, equality of the sexes, the rule of law, pluralism. Has this so-called expert considered that ESW is widely read, and has been for more than two years? Mr. Schiedel, are you saying what I think you are saying?

How utterly fascinating that so-called experts can say whatever they like without any repercussion, and the non-leftists can’t say anything without repercussion! That’s freedom of speech 2.0.

Another case in point: In a guest commentary in a recent Die Presse, a professor argues that

“No one should say that words cannot kill. Of course they can in that they intensify the face of the enemy and build up a climate of demonization, which in turn causes the precondition of the killings by psychologically unstable fanatics, as was the case in the First Republic [right after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire] and as can be seen in the acceptance of the dangerous Islamist hate-preachers. Anti-Muslim hate preachers are also dangerous. [italics added]

Since the final sentence of his comments demonizes critics of Islam, the reader is left wondering what exactly he might mean. Is it dangerous (for whom, for what?) to quote from the Koran? Well, ESW can testify that doing that will get you a court date.

What, once more, is the legal definition of a hate preacher? There is none in Austrian law. Is an imam preaching to his congregation to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies a hate preacher of merely praying (for what, exactly)?

One final remark: Those criticizing the Counterjihad should be aware that opposing the Counterjihad (by way of logic) means arguing in favor of jihad.

Picking Up the Pieces: An Update on Comments

Blasted Tree

Many of our regular readers who were on holiday during the horrific events of July 22nd came back to their normal routine to find the Western world — at least the European part of it — much changed. They have been writing to ask us about our now-closed comments section, and when things might return to “normal”.

To our loyal readers and commenters we must sadly say that things have changed irrevocably. They will never be the same.

This doesn’t mean the comments won’t return. It does mean we must wait until the Gawkers and Creeps and Finger-Pointing-Blamers wander away — i.e., when some new horror or titillation grabs their attention. Think of this phenomenon as part of the same ugly human tendency which impels people to gather at the scene of a road accident. Except this wasn’t an accident: the monster fingered those he wanted destroyed and the mainstream media is simply carrying out his orders. Had he cut-and-pasted his derivative thinking from the Antifas, do you suppose this ratcheting up of their attacks would’ve occurred? The Antifas promote violence and lawlessness in the name of the European state socialist establishment.

ABB, or those he worked with, set about to systematically wreck the efforts of the small, diverse and mostly obscure group of conservative bloggers and writers primarily in America and Britain. It is ludicrous to assign blame based on a barbarian’s “research”, but that is exactly what the Left must needs do; it has no choice. When the prospect of accepting responsibility for what your culture produces is too terrifying, then you must quickly find scapegoats to relieve your own anxiety. Our readers know this; it’s a phenomenon we’ve been discussing for a long time.

[To strangers who’ve arrived here out of breath, pick and shovel in hand to dig through our material looking for ways to blame others — and good luck with that — you have almost ten thousand essays through which you must wade. Given that you arrive as judge and jury rather than someone attempting to understand, I’m sure you’ll find whatever it is you need to believe about us.]

Again, to our regular readers and commenters: at the moment, the sheer level of hits on our site meter (frequently running at ten times their usual rate) dictates the wisdom of closing GoV comments for the interim. When our traffic drops back close to its usual modest number of readers, then we’ll re-open the comments section.

As the Baron told me today,

We have now been publicly identified by innumerable mass media outlets as one of the two primary inspirations for the Norwegian mass murderer. As a result, we are currently in the crosshairs of numerous groups who would love to destroy us. We no longer have the luxury of letting commenters say pretty much whatever they want, because their indiscretion or hyperbole could provide the excuse for shutting us down.

With the imposition of the EU “Constitution” on member states, free speech among the citizens of that sad failure is greatly imperiled. The elites have granted you the right to say and think whatever they approve. The idea that free speech is inherent in the dignity of the individual is being systematically destroyed in favor of the collective mind, a collective whose rules are written by the oligarchs currently in power in the EU.

You are no longer permitted to live and move and have your being outside their pre-approved strictures. Many of our European friends are understandably scared for themselves and for their countries. I can’t say that I blame them. The boundaries of their homelands are blurring, the doors out of the gilded cage of the nanny state are quietly closing, one by one.

We grieve with you. We see our own Gramscians attempting the same thing in our country, too. Will they win? It’s hard to say at this point. The Founding Ideals, of free speech and individual dignity, are under fierce attack here also.

Despite all this, posting will proceed as usual. We didn’t flinch from the truth before all this happened, and we won’t hold back now.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I appear to have digressed from the task of explaining the possible future of comments on Gates of Vienna. However, my point is to provide context and background for the coming change. With that brief summary done, let me explain what is likely to happen:

First things first: while posting will proceed as usual, comment moderation will be imposed at the beginning until we get a sense of how things will proceed. If you’d seen the hateful name-calling and bullying in some of the emails we’ve gotten, you’d understand the necessity for this restriction. It was appalling to see purportedly educated people reduced to insults and personal attacks as methods of argument. I knew our own so-called “educated” class — the academic mandarins in their university ghettoes — had sunk to new lows, but I had no idea the European professors were every bit as bad.

Second — and this part isn’t necessary for our regular readers, who know them well — our usual rules will remain in force, the ones you used to be able to see at the top of the comment box, and this expanded version which was linked there:

1. Civil:   No name calling, gratuitous insults, personal slurs, denigration of someone’s intelligence, etc.
2. Temperate:   No exhortations to commit violence or foment insurrection, etc.
3. On-topic:   We generally don’t delete off-topic comments, but reserve the right to if they are excessively long. A brief OT mention of something you think we should know is perfectly fine.
4. Decorum:   We are a PG-13 blog, because the parents of homeschoolers allow their older children to come over here to further their education. Please make your point without resorting to foul language or explicit descriptions.

Third, there will be new, more rigorous constraints for commenters who wish to have their ideas remain affixed to our posts. These rules follow the simplified outlines of any formal dialogue, i.e., commenters must avoid falling into the murk of fallacious errors if they wish to be part of the exchange of ideas.

In today’s public discourse such lawless talk (more akin to screaming that talking) passes for dialogue. Just look at the average Facebook page to see what I mean. Or turn on your television and watch the screaming heads. Again, as regular readers know well, there is no TV at our house and we both stopped watching the tube thirty years ago. Radio? Not when our choices are the FM stations where National Public Radio holds forth, or AM stations with their endless loud commercials.

Things are different here. We’re not media. We don’t accept the coarse level of “dialogue” that pertains in politics, media or academia. We are supported by modest donations from our faithful readers (plus our own savings). This gives us an editorial freedom to pursue the paths of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Such a pursuit used to be considered the norm. Now it is derided as puritanical. Meanwhile, Propaganda, Ugliness, and Malignity ride the wave of popular demand (see the recent essay by Frontinus for an example of this squalid and mean degradation).

So what are the Rules of Rhetoric for our comment section? Ah, that is the problem. Trying to get across the notion of civilized discourse to people who’ve only been exposed to the Gramscians’ laws, or lack of them. Let me propose a few things it is not:

  • Yelling (via a comment ALL IN CAPS JUST IN CASE YOUR INTERLOCUTOR MISSES YOUR POINT) is discourteous;
  • Appeals to authority are risible — e.g., “I’m a professor and you’re not.” Yes, someone said that in an email and expected to be taken seriously.
  • Blaming is unacceptable.
  • Ridicule will get your comment deleted immediately.
  • Jumping to conclusions by inference are not permitted. A good way to bruise yourself here.
  • Guilt by association. This is a major argumentation of the Left. It’s unethical and lacks integrity but they use it anyway.
  • Poisoning the well. Another common tactic. It uses a “purity principle” against its opponents. Just one of the aspects of smearing and character assassination.
  • Personal attack. This is similar to the ad hominem fallacy but it’s uglier and more immoral in that it aims to shame not just the ideas of one’s opponent, but his very self. Another Gramscian tactic.

Obviously, I haven’t covered all the fallacies that could possibly be used in “debate”. In fact I’ve barely touched on the errors I’ve seen in our opponents’ emails as they gather ’round to deliver their sermons and admonitions from the safety of their place in the well-populated ranks of the socialist welfare state advocates.

There are numerous books and (no doubt) online “mini-courses” which explain the common fallacies used in present-day arguments. Anyone who wishes to comment here would do well to brush up on those terms — surely you learned them in your grade-school debating teams…?

For those who were culturally deprived and never had the opportunity to learn civilized debate, now’s your chance.

For those who can’t be bothered? Fortunately for you there are thousands of other places in which you may hold forth unimpeded by our rules. Those sites will welcome you.

NOTE: An incident to share with our regular readers to give you an idea of the ways in which our opponents operate.

No doubt many of you remember the times I’ve said (in explaining our rules) that being in the comment section was akin to being in our home? My point was that the same rules would apply in the comments as would hold if you were visiting our home. Well, I want you to know that when I repeated this argument to one of the more aggressive Swedes, a university professor — he’d opened his opposition to our decision to close the comments with an email that began “Cowards”, and demeaned himself even more in subsequent emails.

I tell you this to demonstrate the degraded level of these Blamers’ locutions. This particular fellow landed on my analogy with this bon mot: did that include our bedroom? Aside from his obvious discourtesy, I was taken aback by his salacious and unwarranted jump. Fortunately for you and me, he won’t appear here unless he can learn how to speak civilly.

God have mercy on the man’s unfortunate students.

Fort Hood, Part II

Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo was arrested on July 27th for possession of explosive materials, in what was apparently an attempted attack on Fort Hood. Upon leaving court, Pfc. Abdo explicitly referred to the murderous attack by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood two years ago.

A few days ago I heard a news announcer refer to the fact that Pfc. Abdo had had “Islamic terrorist materials” in his possession. That particular media outlet had obviously failed to receive the policy memo warning against the use of the word “terrorist”, especially in conjunction with the words “Islamic” or “Muslim”.

No one in the federal government or the Pentagon would have made the same mistake — the protocol forbidding the use of “terrorist” and “Islamic” is in effect at all levels. The preferred phrase would have been “extremist materials”.

In the Fox News report below, one of Naser Abdo’s fellow soldiers is interviewed about the warning signs displayed by the accused “extremist”. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/30/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/30/2011The U.S. Senate delayed a vote on raising the debt ceiling until 1 pm tomorrow (Sunday July 31). Observers believe that this signifies that a compromise is in the works that will avert a default before the deadline is reached on August 2.

In other news, militants have once again attacked the natural gas pipeline between Egypt and Israel, launching a grenade assault on the terminal in the Sinai.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Fjordman, Frontinus, Insubria, JD, JP, Mary Abdelmassih, Nilk, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Night in the Face of Daybreak

To wrap up Poetry Day, for a change of pace here is an excerpt from a poem by the 19th-century German romantic poet Theodore Fontane. The original German is followed by a translation of the same lines by our Austrian correspondent Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Consider this a protest against al the lies that are flying around the MSM and internet these days about what we do, and what we say, and what we stand for:

Ich glaube an die Wahrheit.
Sie zu suchen, nach ihr zu forschen in und um uns, muß unser
            höchstes Ziel sein. Damit dienen wir vor allem dem Gestern
            und dem Heute.
Ohne Wahrheit gibt es keine Sicherheit und keinen Bestand.
Fürchtet es nicht, wenn die ganze Meute aufschreit. Denn nichts ist
            auf dieser Welt so gehaßt und gefürchtet wie die Wahrheit.
Letzten Endes wird jeder Widerstand gegen die Wahrheit
            zusammenbrechen wie die Nacht vor dem Tag.

I believe in truth.
To look for her, to search for her within us and around us
            must be our highest purpose. In that, we serve
            first and foremost yesterday and today.
Without truth there is no security and no continuity.
Be not afraid when the pack starts to scream and shout.
            For nothing in this world is more hated and feared
            than the truth.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day, any opposition to the truth
            will crumble like the night in the face of daybreak.

Anders Breivik’s World of Ideas

The following article about Anders Behring Breivik appeared today in Aftonbladet, a major Socialist newspaper in Sweden. Many thanks to our Swedish correspondent LN for his heroic exertions in translating it, and to Steen of Snaphanen for helping me figure out the difficult sections.

Regular readers of Gates of Vienna will notice that once we get past the author’s sneering tone and obvious distaste for conservatives, his descriptions of the political opinions held by the Counterjihad are not particularly inaccurate. In fact, that’s one of the disturbing things about Anders Breivik — when simply voicing his opinions, he sounded a lot like normal, non-violent people who oppose the Islamization of the West. And this is not all that surprising, given that he plagiarized quite a number of us for his manifesto, but it’s still disconcerting to read about it.

Prof. Gardell’s view of the Right in the USA is somewhat more peculiar. His description of “Ku Klux Klan-style American patriotism” — which he says was the norm here until the 1980s — does not describe an America I recognize. I was here at the time, but maybe I missed all that somehow. I’ll leave it to the reader to judge the accuracy of that part of his account.

The goal of the Swedish Left is, of course, to use Mr. Breivik and the Norway massacre to discredit the Sweden Democrats, marginalize anti-jihad activists, and squelch any form of nationalist resistance to the multicultural project in Sweden and throughout the rest of Europe.

Remember: to the Left, Breivik’s opinions and our own are identical. I categorically reject the assertion that violence is inherent in what we say, but that view is widely held among the Progressives and Multiculturalists of the West.

Mattias Gardell examines Anders Breivik’s world of ideas

“As Righteous Knight you are the jury, judge, and executioner on behalf of all free Europeans,” says the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto 2083.

Anders Behring Breivik

“It is better to kill too many than not killing enough”, because “the time for dialogue is over” and “time for armed resistance has come.” The terrorist attack in Oslo was not irrational madness but a calculated political assassination. The carnage was a manifestation of a certain logic that can and should be explained, if we want to avoid a repetition. “Our shock attacks are theater and theater is always performed before an audience,” writes Breivik. The self-appointed knight gave himself the stage name Sigurd — Crusaders and had prepared himself by sending out his manifesto to thousands of recipients in the Islamophobic environment, posting a quick message on YouTube, and providing the world’s journalists with promotional pictures of himself, which he easily constructed featuring himself in captivating poses, dressed in formal uniform or combat gear. When Breivik is brought to justice, he is remarkably happy. Newspapers and television have willingly released his promo pictures, his YouTube movie has been downloaded thousands of times, the manifesto has been translated into various languages, and hundreds of anti-Muslim websites and Internet users look to spread it further.

The attacks were carried out, therefore, by a man of faith, which he shares with the political environment of which he is a product, an environment which he hopes to steer into an even more violent path. Let’s step into the world of Breivik’s ideas by reviewing his extensive manifesto in 2083, named after the year of the attack in which the man imagines that the goal must be achieved: a mono-cultural Christian Europe without Muslims and traitors.

It has been pointed out that the work is largely a concoction of texts, whose authors are not always listed, which is true. It does not make 2083 less interesting, because it gives us the ability to track his library. By reading what Breivik reads, we gain entry into his thinking. Thus, we are better equipped to recognize such thought when it pops up elsewhere in today’s public speeches.

The day after the attacks revealed Hans Rustad, initiator of the Norwegian anti-Muslim forum where Breivik has been a frequent participant; that large parts of 2083 were copied from the Unabomber Manifesto, published in 1995 by anti-modernist and technology-critic Ted Kaczynski, who conducted a series of 16 bomb attacks on universities and airlines.

Johan Lundberg, chief editor of Axess, transformed that information into the very core of Breivik’s ideology, and the news was cabled into the thought of supposedly respectable anti-Muslim circles. Is the claim true? No. Three (3) of the 1516 pages are taken from the Unabomber Manifesto, from a section where Kaczynski attacks the Left. The rest comes from elsewhere. Looking at Breivik’s main influences, four influential idea streams may be identified: contemporary Islamophobic thought and culture, conservative traditions, elements of modern White Power ideology, and anti-feminism, all framed by a distinctly romantic masculine warrior ideal.

The leitmotiv is Islamophobia. Breivik draws his material from the American anti-Muslim writers Robert Spencer, Gregory M. Davis, Andrew Bostom, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes, the British conspiracy theorist Bat Ye’or (Gisèle Littman), the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, the Flemish nationalist Koenraad Elst, and the Norwegian anti-Muslim who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman, whose thinking was marketed in Sweden by, among others, SD’s Kent Ekeroth and Jimmie Åkesson.

This evoked a Manichean picture with apocalyptic overtones. Quite contrary to existing empirical evidence, it is alleged that for 1300 years the Western world has been in a fateful conflict with Islam, depicted as an actor with a sinister agents, who tirelessly seek the eradication of Christian Europe, an outpost of freedom in the world. Muslims, who all share the same immutable and malevolent being, colonize the West by stealth and through its continuous childbearing wage demographic warfare that will be militarized as soon as they become sufficiently numerous. It is supported by the Islamic world conspiracy in collusion with specific categories of Westerners: politicians, scientists, teachers, large entrepreneurs, and journalists who speak of dialogue, consensus and equality, and brand the standard-bearers of truth as “racists” and “Islamophobes.” For resistance to arise, the people must be awakened from the spell cast by the intellectual traitors. Download Breivik’s texts from cultural- and radical-conservative sites. As an anti-intellectual, his weapon is directed by populists at “political correctness”, “multiculturalism” and “cultural Marxists”, and their supposed hegemony in the universities.

Breivik complains, with support from William S. Lind, the Princeton-educated director of the Center of Cultural Conservatism, about many of our most important thinkers, such as Freud, Marx, Gramsci, Adorno, Reich, Marcuse, Foucault and Derrida, and has a special grievance against Edward Said, post-colonial studies, post-structuralism and queer theory.

The antidote is to banish them from the universities, and for conservative thinkers to restore the value of European culture and its achievements, including the benefits brought by colonialism. This is easier said than done, as the power of the traitors is omnipresent. So assumes Breivik from two guiding conclusions of modern White Power ideology. In the early 1980s, the battle by American white racists for state power was lost. The movement’s enemies had taken Congress and eliminated the racial laws that had previously guaranteed white Americans’ defined privileges.

Ku Klux Klan-style American patriotism was thus outdated. The violence was not primarily directed against blacks, but against traitors in power. As police and security services were transformed from friend to enemy, the resistance could not follow the classic model with member-based organizations that could be infiltrated and surveilled. Instead it evolved a leaderless resistance strategy, with a propaganda-oriented branch that remained within the legal framework and an underground armed branch of small cells and individual killers, who were responsible for their own finance and operations. The perspective spread in the globalized White Power milieu, including in Sweden where, inter alia, it inspired the Laserman. The parts of 2083 which deal with organizational issues and strategy and explain how to obtain weapons, make bombs, and plan attacks, are in line with this. On other important points Breivik differs from the White Power mindset. About race he is ambivalent. 2083 both distances itself from and embraces racism. Breivik writes that at first he “hesitated to include the words race, white or ethnicity” because I “convinced myself that I was primarily against Islam” and “would only complicate the fight” if I “wrote about skin color.”

Nevertheless Breivik includes excerpts from “From Titans to Lemmings — The Suicide of the White Race”, published by the British National Party. On one point the break, however, is total. Breivik has no sympathy for the Nazis’ hatred of Jews, which he finds totally irrelevant. Instead, he embraces, like the English Defence League and the Sweden Democrats, a right-wing Israeli agenda, in which Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu are seen as allies in the war against Islam.

Since feminism is a movement for equality and emancipation, it sticks is Breivik’s craw. From his cultural-conservative perspective, feminism is a natural enemy ideology, which undermined the nuclear family and contributed to Western decadence. He was born in 1979, but dreams of a return to an idealized 1950s, when he imagines that the men were men, women managed the household, children were well-behaved, and when there was no crime or Muslims in our countries. Feminists enable Multiculturalism, romanticize Multiculturalism, and feminize Western men, so that they are unable to resist. This will facilitate the Muslims’ power grab, which Breivik, like the conservative writers Phyllis Chesler and Melanie Phillips, believes will lead to a real (rather than imaginary) female subordination. This opens the door to the male warrior-hero’s entrance. Animated tales of chivalry, movie epics such as 300, The Lord of the Rings, The Passion Of The Christ, Serb nationalist narratives of Radovan Karadzic’s bloody actions during the Bosnian civil war, and the exploits he performed in World of Warcraft equipped Breivik for battle. He comes from a privileged family, where his father was a diplomat and his stepfather a military officer. He grew up in Skøyen, a wealthy district in western Oslo, went to the same school as the royal children, went on to business school and became a millionaire by his own affidavit in stock trading and e-business. As a white, Christian, heterosexual, and wealthy man Breivik believes that he has fixed the native privileges that are now threatened by all sorts of minorities, gender ideologies, and the general decay that has opened the gates to Europe’s supposed arch-enemy, Islam.

Like the radical conservative philosophers Julio Evola and Ernst Jünger, Breivik says that Western decadence can only be cured by a violent cleansing. 2083 contains two ultimatums. Before 2020, Muslims convert to Christianity, adopt Christian names, abandon their native languages and foreign customs, or prepare for expulsion and death. The armed forces in Europe’s countries must stage coups, introduce martial law, execute all traitors, while all Muslims and Islam must be forbidden. Otherwise, the Templars have no choice but “take matters into their own hands.” Spectacular attacks against traitors and Muslims will lead to a civil war, which Breivik wanted to herald with his attack. “Thousands of innocent people will die”, but “the majority’s welfare comes before that of the few.”

Mattias Gardell is a professor of religious history.

“We Are All Osama Bin Laden!”

As we reported yesterday, the “day of unity” in Cairo did not turn out as planned. After allying with the secular democratic groups for the purpose of demonstrating in Tahrir Square, the Islamic fundamentalists — who outnumbered the secular groups — took over the demo and shoved the others aside. The secularists eventually withdrew, leaving the protest entirely to the Salafists.

The following news video from Al Jazeera describes what happened:

Hat tip: J-PD.

Anticipation of True Felicity

Detail from “Phryne in Eleusus” by Henryk Siemiradzki (1889)

By long-established custom, Saturday is either Ranting Day or Poetry Day here at Gates of Vienna. This past week’s events have left me too worn out to rant, so poetry will have to do.

A few days ago, just as the flood of media fury surrounding this blog crested, the following poem by Robert Graves came into my mind. It seemed to have relevance to our current situation.

The phrase “Eleusinian ambrosia” in the penultimate line is a reference to the potion drunk by initiates at the Greater Eleusinian Mysteries at the culmination of the festival of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis.

The concision and economy of diction in this poem lend it a lambent clarity:

As When the Mystic
by Robert Graves

To be lost for good to the gay self-esteem
That carried him through difficult years of childhood,
To be well-stripped of all tattered ambitions
By his own judgement, now scorning himself
As past redemption —
                                                this is anticipation
Of true felicity, as when the mystic
Starved, frightened, purged, assaulted and ignobled
Drinks Eleusinian ambrosia
From a gold cup and walks in Paradise.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/29/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/29/2011The U.S. House of Representatives finally passed a bill that permits the raising of the debt limit and provides for modest spending reductions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the bill will be dead when it gets to the Senate, and President Obama promises to veto it, anyway. So default is still just four days away.

In other news, according to intelligence sources in Belarus, Anders Behring Breivik received paramilitary training earlier this year at a secret camp in Belarus.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JP, Nilk, Srdja Trifkovic, TV, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Pushback Against the OIC — From the UN

In case anyone was wondering whether the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, the body formerly known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference) was going to take advantage of last week’s massacre in Norway, the suspense is gone. The latest interview with OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu demonstrates that the OIC intends to exploit the killing fields of Utøya for strategic purposes as part of its ten-year struggle against “Islamophobia”.

Below are some excerpts from today’s issue of Today’s Zaman:

OIC head İhsanoğlu: Breivik’s massacre in Norway tip of iceberg

The chief of the world’s largest Muslim body has said the Norway massacre and blast that left at least 76 dead and dozens injured is only “the tip of the iceberg,” warning that the incident is the latest product of rampantly rising extremist political movement sweeping across Europe.

Ekmelledin İhsanoğlu, secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) told Today’s Zaman in an interview that growing animosity toward Islam in Europe in the past few years needs to be analyzed in order to decipher last week’s Norway massacre. Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik has admitted that he set off a car bomb in the government district of Oslo, killing at least eight people, then drove several miles northwest of the Norwegian capital to an island where the youth wing of the ruling Labor Party was holding its annual summer camp.

He arrived at Utøya Island posing as a police officer, then opened fire on scores of unsuspecting youth, executing them one after another as they tried to flee into the water. Sixty-eight people died, many of them teenagers.

İhsanoğlu said that before the incident on July 22 the Western world always either had a difficult time understanding or did not want to understand the phenomenon of growing Islamophobia. Giving credit to the organization he leads, İhsanoğlu said he has been very aware of this issue since he assumed his position in 2005. He said a series of major events revealing anti-Islamic sentiments afoot in Europe began with the infamous cartoon crisis.

A Danish daily published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 that led to a crisis between European nations and the Muslim world. Muslims across the world staged protests, sometimes violently attacking the embassies of Western countries, which defended the cartoonist’s freedom of speech.

İhsanoğlu said a great deal of what he had to deal with at the outset of his job as a secretary-general was related to this “insulting” issue. He said many senior European officials accused Muslims of trying to restrict freedom of speech, alleging that the outrage among Muslims was a result of their “extreme sensitivity” and that it is acceptable to draw cartoons of anyone.

He said his organization was unable to persuade Europeans that it is animosity against Islam which is on rise, despite repeated calls. But he said by time this issue began to be debated, similar incidents had begun slowly increasing, and the OIC introduced this matter at the United Nations General Assembly and its human rights agency. He said they OIC was also successful in pushing for UN endorsement of several decisions related to defamation of religion. He said these resolutions, adopted at the United Nations Human Rights Council in March of this year, were in support of OIC’s viewpoints.

İhsanoğlu added that these decisions were challenged by European nations, who argued that they are one-sided and restrict freedom of speech. He said the language of the statements was then changed to avoid bias, by specifying “religions and faiths” rather than “religion or faith.”

European countries have been under fire for overlooking right-wing terrorism threats, while devoting much of their resources to Islamist threats, despite a sharp decline in the number of such attacks. In the wake of Norway’s terrorist attack, the European police agency Europol established a task force of more than 50 experts to help investigate non-Islamist terrorist threats in Scandinavian countries. Europe has seen an overall increase in xenophobia, boosting the ranks of ultranationalists and fueling their activity.

In contrast, Europol’s 2011 terrorism watch report, released in April of this year, stated that Islamist terrorists carried out only three attacks on EU territory in 2010, while separatist groups, on the other hand, were responsible for 160 attacks and left-wing and anarchist groups were responsible for 45 attacks.

İhsanoğlu said the Norway massacre is very thought-provoking, when we consider that Breivik had no tolerance for Muslims or for those who are tolerant of Muslims.

The Secretary-General then reminds us that just a week before the killings in Norway, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed herself in full agreement with the OIC’s position:

Recalling a July 15 conference on the topic of interfaith dialogue in İstanbul with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, İhsanoğlu said that that meeting also stressed the importance of the UN Human Rights Council’s decision. The conference called on nations to reconcile freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

“The participants … reaffirm their commitment to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression by urging states to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief,” read the final declaration produced in the conference, in which Clinton, İhsanoğlu, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, together with foreign ministers and officials from 19 countries, the Office of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the Arab League and the African Union participated.

Clinton and İhsanoğlu, who represents 57 Muslim nations in international forums, announced plans for future talks on how to reconcile freedom of speech with tolerance. İhsanoğlu urged in a speech given at the meeting that steps be taken to end double standards and racial or religious profiling. Such acts, he said, must not be condoned by states and should be addressed through structured and sustained engagement.

It’s important to remember what “tolerance” means in this context: it means that Islam cannot be criticized.

To criticize it is “intolerant”. Other examples of “intolerance” include:

1.   The accurate description by non-Muslims of Islamic beliefs.
2.   Non-Muslims quoting the Koran and the hadith correctly.
3.   Any descriptions of the prophet Mohammed’s marriage to a child.
4.   Any reference to documented evidence of Islam’s blood-soaked history of conquest…

…and many, many more.

In fact, any non-Muslim who says anything about Islam which differs from what Muslims say about it is intolerant.

We’re an intolerant lot, we are.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Over the last decade or so we’ve become accustomed to the United Nations acting as almost a surrogate for the OIC, what with its myriad resolutions condemning Israel, and its human rights bodies staffed by representatives of the most repressive dictatorships on the planet. So who would expect the resistance to the OIC’s illiberal agenda to originate in the UN Human Rights Committee?

But that’s exactly what happened, unless this new document from the UNHRC has some fine print that is not described in this article from The Vancouver Sun:

UN experts set out tough rules on human rights

Geneva — The UN’s Human Rights Committee said on Thursday that freedom of expression was a “meta-right” underpinning all human rights everywhere.

A long-awaited document from the panel of 18 jurists also said that freedom of opinion, and by extension religion, should not be restricted under any circumstances and warned governments that did so they would be violating a basic UN accord.

The independent experts, set out their trenchant stance in a “general comment” on how parts of the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be interpreted and applied.

The comment, committee vice-chairman Michael O’Flaherty, told a media conference, “is a strong reaffirmation of the central importance for all human rights of the freedom of expression”, even of giving views some see as deeply offensive.

The 15-page document, interpreting two paragraphs of the 1976 Covenant, hit at anti-terror laws, monopoly media, anti-blasphemy statutes and prosecution of maverick historians.

Islamic and some Western countries have blasphemy laws, and the “history” strictures were clearly aimed at criminalisation in some European countries, including Germany and Austria, of writings suggesting the World War II Holocaust was a myth.

The UNHRC paper explicitly mentions the possibility that the killings in Norway might be exploited to restrict free speech, and warns against such action:

Norway Debate

By implication, the committee waded into a debate raging since last Friday’s killings in Norway by an anti-immigrant extremist over whether public or media criticism of Muslim practices, dubbed by some “Islamophobia”, should be restricted.

Rather, said the jurists — including four from Muslim states — it was “prohibitions on displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws” that would violate “free speech” provisions in the 167-nation covenant.

That stricture, they said, would also apply to any move “to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith” — action that Islamic countries have long sought in the world body.

Some Muslim states such as Pakistan have signed up to the covenant but argue that shariah law — which bars conversion from Islam to other faiths or to atheism — takes precedence. O’Flaherty said such a view would violate the pact.

Who would have thought that the last major resistance to the combined forces of Hillary Clinton and the OIC would be the United Nations? Imagine, the Human Rights Committee defending actual human rights.

There is one problem, however: the UNHRC has no real teeth.

It has no enforcement mechanism, but countries generally prefer to avoid falling foul of the 18 jurists who all have reputations as strong-minded legal and human rights specialists ready to speak out on violations anywhere.

For right now, this is as about as good as it’s going to get. And it’s a lot better than I thought it would be just a few weeks ago.

From the UN, of all places.

Hat tip: Frontinus.

Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:

2007   Aug   31   The OIC is Barking Now
    Sep   7   OIC: Insulting Islam is an Illness
        12   Sweden Apologizes Again… Or Not
    Dec   10   Countering Islamophobia
2008   Feb   17   Nice Little Civilization You Have Here…
    Mar   6   Our Man in the OIC
        13   An American Dhimmi in Dakar
    Apr   30   Is Europe a “Christian-Muslim” Continent?
    Jun   10   OIC: Time to Crack Down on Provocative Speech
        17   The OIC’s Plan for Fighting Islamophobia
        22   The OIC’s Crusade Against Islamophobia
    Aug   3   The Islam-Aligned Movement
    Sep   25   The OIC Fights Islamophobia at Columbia University
    Oct   11   Confronting Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
    Nov   1   Fisking Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
2009   Mar   5   Mandating International Respect for Islam
        20   What is Eurabian Culture?
2010   Jan   25   The Caliphate-in-Waiting
    Jul   27   Accommodating Sharia
    Oct   5   Decoding the Words of the OIC

Breivik: Inspired by Al Qaeda?

The Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels sends this brief examination of the real inspiration for last week’s massacre in Norway.

Breivik: Inspired by Al Qaeda, Not Gates of Vienna
by Nicolai Sennels

Anders Breivik, the accused Norwegian mass murderer, claims that he found inspiration for his massacre in blogs focusing on Islam and Muslim immigration.

He did not. Breivik found inspiration in his own wretched interpretation of these blogs’ messages. Contrary to the Quran, for example, these blogs promote democracy and human rights, not murder and violent world revolution.

Breivik’s true inspiration is clear to everyone: The Lashkar-e-Taiba attack in Mumbai and Al-Qaeda’s massacres around the world. No wonder that so many newspapers initially stated that Norway had been hit by Islamists. And no wonder that Islamists were the only ones to call the tragedy “good news”.

Breivik’s interpretation of the Islam-critical blogs that he mentions in his manifesto is just as subjective and just as much a misunderstanding as the democratic and peaceful Muslims’ interpretation of their own religion.

Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and the author of “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality”.

Previous posts by or about Nicolai Sennels:

2010   Jan   6   The Eternal Victim
    Feb   19   Youths, Crime, and Islam
    Apr   11   The Stigmatization Fallacy
    May   8   Islam Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
    Jul   28   Nicolai Sennels: An Open Letter to David Cameron
    Aug   5   Rape by Proxy
        10   Islam and Inbreeding
    Dec   17   The Connection Between Muslim Inbreeding and Terrorism
2011   Jan   10   The Dhimmification of the Red Cross
        12   Was Muhammad a Gelotophobe?
        26   Food Crises are Caused by Overpopulation
    Feb   10   Send in the Midwives!
        23   Western Quran Schools Are “Terrorist Factories”
    Mar   22   Why Multiculture Will Always Fail
        26   What is Islamization?
    Apr   3   The Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People
    May   3   Islam’s Nancy Boys: The Psychological Background
        25   Arab Drought: Oil for Water
        28   Lean to the Left
    Jun   2   Freedom is Slavery
        11   Shame: Muslim culture’s armour. Weapon? Humour.

Oil and Water in Tahrir Square

Today’s demonstration in Cairo was billed as a great “day of unity” for Egypt’s various protest groups. Islamic fundamentalists and secular groups had supposedly cut a deal to put aside their differences and come together in a common struggle against the military government.

According to this report from Russia Today, however, things didn’t work out quite as planned. Although the anger and violence were directed against the military, tensiona arose between the Salafist groups and the secular democrats among the demonstrators:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.