Our English correspondent Paul Weston returns with a mordant look at the Breivik letter and the pusillanimity of the legacy media, who have refused to report on its contents.
Breivik and the Wicked Leftist Media
by Paul Weston
A world controlled by the wicked and immoral Left is a very unpleasant place in which to live. At the furthest extremity of Left-wingery we have genocide, totalitarianism, gulags and evil. At the softer end of Left-wingery we have propaganda, lies, MSNBC, smears, the BBC, hatred of tradition and decency, and the concomitant incremental demise of the Western democracy historically defended by millions of our young men who now lie in graves both marked and unmarked across the Western world.
Unfortunately for the decent, intelligent and moral people today, the Left have largely carried out their Long March and now control the institutions which form the thoughts and opinions of the vast majority of Western peoples. He who controls the media and the educational establishment controls the past, the present, and the future, just as Hitler, Stalin and their present-day Socialist comrades-in-arms intended.
To really see what this means in 2014, we need look no further than the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the counter-jihad movement, and the truly obscene behaviour of the Leftist media — particularly so in Scandinavian countries.
In 2011 Breivik carried out his murderous spree, to the shock and horror of all decent people everywhere. The Leftist media, however — which had already made up its mind about certain individuals within the counter-jihad movement — sought to use this act of evil purely to mount an assault upon high-profile individuals whose “crime” was to peacefully and accurately draw attention to the dangers involved in allowing a barbaric ideology by the name of Islam to flourish both demographically and “culturally” within the cohesive, peaceful and Christian West.
I am not going to go into forensic detail about the actions of the Leftist media, which have been covered in depth already by Robert Spencer, Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman, all of whom were viciously attacked by Left-wing journalists who were outraged (rightly so) by the actions of Breivik, but who had all remained smugly mute for years over the numerically far higher number of murders carried out in the name of Islam or Socialism.
Just to give a couple of typical examples, the Guardian newspaper, chock-full of wicked Leftists, remarked that America had been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved on 9/11, whilst the BBC bent over backwards to excuse Islam whilst reducing the then U.S. Ambassador to tears in front of a baying mob of specifically imported Muslims and Leftists within a BBC studio.
But why such overt double standards over two acts of similar atrocity? Why the total failure to hold up the Koran and the hadith for 9/11? And why the massive, concerted and hysterical smear campaign against Bodissey, Spencer and Fjordman?
The answer of course is because the Left wish to use Islam as a pawn in the breakdown of Western Nation States, Christianity, and free enterprise, a.k.a. capitalism. An orderly, affluent, peaceful, civilised country contains very few potential voters for the far Left, so even if Islam did not exist, the Left would have to invent it — and then eagerly import it. There can be no better ideological ally if the intention is to manufacture social unrest and potential civil war, which justifies ever-increasing authoritarianism prior to the eventual full-blown Leftist totalitarianism necessary to keep a lid on things.
Hence the smearing of the counter-jihad, and the politically deceitful defence of the so called religion of peace. But in a rational and sane world (ie: a non-Leftist world) there is one overwhelming and striking difference between the gentle, polite, articulate and well informed output of the counter-jihad movement, and the murderous actions of both Breivik and similarly violent Muslim supremacists, which is starkly simple — Bodissey, Spencer and Fjordman have never once called for violence to be inflicted upon Muslims or Leftists, but Muslims and Leftists routinely call for (and practice) violence upon those they disagree with.
Which, over a long and meandering route, brings me to the point of this article, which is the near total refusal of the MSM to publicise the recent Breivik letter to the MSM where he essentially admits he considers the counter-jihad movement to be comprised of a bunch of panty-waisted individuals with no appetite for killing, no admiration for Nazism, no desire for violence and perhaps even worse, a sympathy for Israel. Ho ho ho, he says, I have attempted to discredit the entire movement which I hate with a passion for its passive, intellectual, peaceful approach to the Islamic problem, and I have been greatly assisted by the cretinous Leftist media…
Breivik is positively gloating over the ease with which he pulled the wool over the Leftist media’s eyes, but he should not be so hubristic, because the anti-Western Leftist media actively wanted to be deliberately blinded to truth, reason, decency and fact. And what then, is the outcome of this?
Not good is the answer. Not good for anyone. Mild-mannered, scholarly and peaceful people have been falsely smeared and stigmatised, whilst violent Islam has been falsely defended. And all the while, the anger amongst the peoples of the West continues to build to an eventual future extent where the Bodisseys, Spencers and Fjordmans of this world — who provide an accurate, impartial and peaceful analysis of our problems — will be replaced by people with an altogether different outlook, as we are already beginning to see in the rise of several real fascist movements in Europe.
So please allow me to offer my most sincere congratulations to the Leftist media. You have attacked the peaceful, native defenders of Western civilisation and labelled them as evil, whilst defending the foreign, violent attackers of Western civilisation, who you disingenuously promote as harmless, virtuous and good.
What a thoroughly evil lot you are. No journalistic integrity; no personal morality and no common, basic decency amongst any of you. Will we see a single one of you publish Breivik’s admission? Of course not, and of course not for a pretty simple reason — you are too immersed in your wicked Leftist activism to behave in a way any normal person outside the all-smothering political Leftist world would recognise as brave, responsible, impartial, good or decent. You are more than a disgrace to your profession; you are a treacherous disgrace to humanity.
For more detailed analysis, please see the following articles:
Paul Weston, Jack Buckby and Enza Ferreri of Liberty GB are standing in the European Union elections in May 2014. If you would like to financially support their campaign, do please DONATE HERE.
Paul’s website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here.
For links to his previous essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.
Previous posts about Anders Behring Breivik’s letter to the media:
The…Left wish to use Islam as a pawn in the breakdown of Western Nation States, Christianity, and free enterprise, a.k.a. capitalism. An orderly, affluent, peaceful, civilised country contains very few potential voters for the far Left, so even if Islam did not exist, the Left would have to invent it…
Succinct and unutterably sad. Not to mention evil.
Do the annals of history show a similar confluence of events as those which pertain now across the West?
I think that this situation is pretty unique, mainly because of the mesmerizing power of television piped into our living spaces and consumed by the gallon by all and sundry. It is probably the most dangerous drug ever known to man, and can instil a total form of permanent and mindless euphoria…..
Add a little bit of mind control to the brew, and hey presto!, tyranny is here and unchallenged.
Paul misses this little tidbit: The MSM is on it, it’s one of the biggest repositories of Leftist thugs, fanatics and statists around. To expect them to behave anything other than they have been is to expect blood from a rock.
It boils down to this. What part of being a target of a movement that wants you dead and gone don’t you understand? Look that’s how the Left views Western Civ and it’s defenders – as evil personified and they have worked tirelessly for this since the the arrival of the Frankfurt group attacking the foundations of Western culture – higher education, the family, Christianity, freedom of speech, marriage, etc.
The Left doesn’t hide it, they’re quite open about it all. While the majority of traditional Conservatives still think it’s just some dirty power politics and smelly Marxist college kids with a drug habit agitating at the fringes. It’s not. It’s war. You thought by being nice, PC/MC and scholarly you were going to win their respect or that they’d us leave alone?
That’s a laugh!!!
Look at what happened to Robinson. His EDL was as PC/MC as a political party comes, yet the elite crushed him, turned him into a quisling and now put him back into jail.
We’re dirt in their eyes and always will be. We’re corn field material. Get used to it. The moment people openly or silently oppose the Left they become the enemy. They are labeled as racists, Nazis, xenophobes, anti-Semites, anti-Women, anti-gay.
Even if Breivik didn’t exist, the anti-jihad movement would still be persona non-grata.
Remember the Hollywood producer whom Robert Spencer managed to win over last year? Just merely for disagreeing with the others he was summarily tossed out on his rear end. This is what happens to insiders.
Understand who we are confronting – the people whose role models include Alinsky, Che’, Chavez, Stalin. Totalitarian thugs and murderers.
They brook no dissension. They are the boot stepping on the face of mankind forever – if we let them.
Know that we are in a fight with a group that views political machinations as a form of war and all is permissible and they are in it to win. And that there is no appeasing them, all truces are merely rests between battles. And you folks wonder why the Left gets along so swimmingly with the Muzzies, they do think quite alike.
There’s no point in blaming “the Left” in a country like Britain, unless one also blames the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Rabbis, The Telegraph, etc. There is every indication that they are all in on it. They may not all be part of one single conspiracy, but they are all clearly involved in some supplementary conspiracy.
Here’s just one indication that they are all in on it. Following Lee Rigby’s beheading, the Deputy Prime Minister of a Conservative/LibDem coalition — surrounded by top-brass from the military and the police, MPs from all parties, and with a Sheikh and other religious types — brazenly claimed to read from koran 5:32, whilst lying and removing the section of koran 5:32 which sanctions the murder of those who oppose islam. Nobody objected to this. Not at the time, not afterwards. If not one voice from the establisment pipes — not even any of the extremist muslims — to say that Clegg was perverting the koran, then that’s a good sign that they all have motives for ensuring that the non-muslim population of Britain are fundamentally mislead about islam.
As Hayek (and von Mises and James Burnham) pointed out by 1960, the British Conservative Party are socialists. Whilst the Left are the motor, every one else is just being pulled along in their wake. I don’t believe that the elite (David Cameron, or Boris Johnson, for example) have any concern at all for gay rights or gay marriage. They go along with the Leftist agenda because doing so will still take them where they ultimately want to be.
Nothing any of us can do can stop them. In a British context, the signs that islam was trouble can be traced back to the Rushdie Affair, the Iranian “revolution”, Libyan embassy siege, Indian independence, “communal” riots in India, Gordon of Khartoum, the assassination of Lord Mayo.
The elites in Britain made their decisions at different junctures after WW2, with a knowledge of the history of the problems with muslims; and there was nothing that could have led them to think that islam and muslims had changed between the assassination of Lord Mayo and the millions killed in the partition of India. The marker in the sand was the Rushdie Affair, when a level of violence and intolerance appeared in Britain which had not been seen for centuries. Nothing was put in place to stop immigration by muslims, nothing was put in place to investigate what islam meant for Britain, nothing was put in place to re-educate muslim. Not one of the 100s who marched round threatening to kill Rushdie was even prosecuted. All we got was more muslims.
Many think that the elite are simply naive. No. These people are brutal and cold and calculating. They know all about islam, and for some years, the only explanation that makes any sense, is that they want to islamise the West. This will mean the end of democracy, and that must be their plan.
If we go with the assumption that most people make, that oil is limited and will run out, then I do not see that the elite are going to want any of the world to be democratic when that starts to bite. They will want an ideology in place which means that the plebs are easily kept down. And islam is probably the best contender for that ideology.
I cannot think of any other scenario that explains why they are so keen on islamising the west.
But when a Colonel, a Sheikh and a muslim member of the House of Lords all stand by whilst Clegg brazenly lies about koran 5:32, you can’t just blame the Left. Something far bigger is afoot.
I agree on that, it’s massive.
One critical thing to remember is that the British upper class fancy themselves as being capable of containing any revolutionary movement, to absorb it, twist it a bit and assimilate it. Pure arrogant self regard should not be counted out as a reason for their otherwise inexplicable actions.
I also see the English habit of bumbling through, have a cuppa and hope it all blows over. When the supply of cheap Polish, Russian and other Eastern Euro dried up in the cold war, we had to seek out cheap Paki and Jamiacan labour. The bed was made for us because of Soviet policy. If I’m not mistaken before ww2, before 1917 especially the Isles were regularly replenished by eastern European migrants who decided that America was a bit too far away to risk it. They stayed in Liverpool or Southhampton and assimilated. It’s now running out of control and all the establishment can do is muddle through with an embarrassed expression.
Many think that the elite are simply naive. No. These people are brutal and cold and calculating. They know all about islam, and for some years, the only explanation that makes any sense, is that they want to islamise the West. This will mean the end of democracy, and that must be their plan.
Is the almost-King Charles in on this deal??
——————————-
Except for Bonnie King Charlie’s mendacity which is in a special category, our America’s political class went y’all one better. They imported seriously salalfist Muslim Brotherhood members and inserted them at all levels of our permanent bureaucracy. They have infiltrated the Defense Department and all the intel bureaucracy. Anyone who wants a future in his/her civil service career never says certain words out loud.
A favorite piece of American folklore from the current administration is this You Tube video of Eric Holder, who cannot permit the term “radical Islam” to pass his lips. EVER. The following clip exists in many iterations on You Tube and remains a perennial favorite of students of the human mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp6a_nClgK4
It is fascinating and deeply creepy to watch Holder’s tongue-tied paralysis. The viewer wonders: is Holder is deeply afraid and stuck on silence or he is simply a dim bulb following to the very end the orders given him? It’s impossible to know for sure. Perhaps a slow mo view with many stops to watch his features would provide a tell. The video could serve as a training guide.
Even if you read the books of some of the former career lawyers at the Justice Department who left rather than implement his racialist program, you still can’t decide.
Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department
What is clear is that Holder and Obama are race opportunists. This category differs somewhat from Race Grievance Mongers. R.O. s are G.M.s whose keepers moved them past the others and into the stratosphere where media never interferes with their trajectory.
Has anything similar happened in the UK??
“Has anything similar happened in the UK??” I assume you mean a senior government figure being afraid to use the term “radical islam”?
I think the UK has had the reverse. In 2005 David Cameron (before he was PM), said islamic extremists are like Nazis.:
‘there is a generation of Islamists in the West, young men whose insecurities and search for certainty make them vulnerable to an ideology of purity. And, once they embrace Jihadism, their life in the West becomes “a hazardous survival exercise in enemy-occupied territory” with temptations to impurity everywhere. Taking up arms against that society becomes not just a cleansing exercise, it also confers on the young terrorist a sense of mission and superiority. Just like the Nazis of 1930s Germany they want to purge corrupt cosmopolitan influences. The parallels with the rise of Nazi-ism go further. Just as there were figures in the 1930s who misunderstood the totalitarian wickedness of Nazi-ism and argued that Hitler had a rational set of limited political demands, so there are people today who try to explain Jihadist violence with reference to a limited set of political goals.’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179698.stm
Yet in the subsequent 10 years he has never repeated that sentiment, nor has his government taken any action that could suggest that they believe that to be true.
My suspicion is that this is because of what Douglas Murray did the following year: he said that steps needed to be taken to make Europe less attractive to muslims.
“Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition”.
According to Conservative Party insiders, Murray was ostracised by the Party for saying this. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2011/10/by-paul-goodman-the-struggle-against-islamist-extremism-demands-from-the-start-the-separation-of-islam-a-complex-religion.html
What Murray said was the logical corollary of what David Cameron said. If politicians believe that muslim fundamentalists (or muslims) are like Nazis, then the responsible step is to take steps to stop the number of them growing. Clearly the number of those here are going to grow by reproduction alone, so the only way to reduce their number is to make it so that others do not want to emigrate to Europe.
If 20 years in the future, Europe ends up holding Nuremberg Trials for those who did nothing to stop the civil war, David Cameron will be a prime candidate for conviction. In 2005 he publicly acknowledged the type of existential threat facing people in Europe, then over a period of 10 years went silent and passive. Those Conservative Party members who marginalised Murray should also be candidates for prosecution.
David Cameron demonstrated that he understood the totalitarian wickedness of islam, but did nothing to stop it. The muslim population of the UK is double what it was when Cameron displayed his knowledge of the threat.
Bloody hell Paul! Brilliant article. If you were leader of UKIP there really would be cause for optimism in the UK.
There is probably a range of factors at work. I wouldn’t discount fear mixed with pride, fear of the threat of muslim violence and pride seeing muslims as 3rd world folk who are no threat.
Finally, a more measured observation in this Gallery of Vienna. I would only modify it by substituting “ethical narcissism” for “pride”.
“One critical thing to remember is that the British upper class fancy themselves as being capable of containing any revolutionary movement, to absorb it, twist it a bit and assimilate it. Pure arrogant self regard should not be counted out as a reason for their otherwise inexplicable actions.”
Except the Big Lie with koran 5:32 began with Obama, when he visited Al Azhar University. And none of the assembled — the greatest experts on Sunni islam — corrected his deceit over koran 5:32.
The importation of millions upon millions of muslims into the EU is in contravention to the fundamental principle of the EU — an internal market with barriers to entry. There have never been any barriers to entry for muslim “workers” (who mostly don’t work).
Before Britain joined the EU (under the cover of “the Single Market”), there was an excuse for the elite importing muslims — it was to keep down the wages of the working class. The elite could always use the excuse “they are from the Commonwealth”. However, once Britain covertly joined the EU, then that immigration should have ceased.
Moreover, the same muslim immigration is going on in Canada, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece. None of these countries had any empire with muslim countries in it. Why have they all got so many muslim immigrants? The problems are the same with muslim immigrants everywhere – low employment, high criminality, intolerance, subversion. Yet still, they keep on coming.
And in 2006, when Douglas Murray suggested in his Pim Fortuyn memorial speech, that Europe be made less attractive to muslim immigrants, he was cast out by the Conservative Party.
So, blaming the Left is missing a huge part of the picture.
“Except the Big Lie with koran 5:32 began with Obama, when he visited Al Azhar University. And none of the assembled — the greatest experts on Sunni islam — corrected his deceit over koran 5:32.”
Actually, obama was merely following in the footsteps of his predecessor, at least in this respect.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/10/bush-holds-iftar-dinner-says-muslim-leaders-must-denounce-terrorism/ ;
and the inimitable Hugh Fitzgerald:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/fitzgerald-when-obama-channels-bush-or-quran-532-without-533/
In so many respects, not the least of which were the official attitude toward islam and unrestrained federal spending, bush laid the groundwork for obama.
Thanks for pointing out that our “ally” Bush led the way with this deceit.
However, the situation is worse with Obama. He was making his claim in front of the Sunni world’s scriptural experts. Surely he would have ensured he didn’t pervert the koran in front of them? And having perverted the koran, surely one of them would have corrected him?
And when it comes to the Deputy Prime Minister of Britain – he claimed to be reading from the koran, and he was surrounded by muslims drawn from the British establishment. He was even talking about how the beheaders of Lee Rigby perverted the koran. Yet Clegg truly perverted the koran. And not one of these loyal, moderate, establishment muslims saw fit to correct his perversion.
One of those loyal, establishment muslims was a Sheikh. There is no record that be pointed out that Clegg’s perversion fundamentally altered the meaning of koran 5:32.
So you think that because the Conservatives have conservative in their party name, they actually are conservative? They are as pc as all the rest!
There are no purely conservative parties in the west – not anywhere; they’ve all been taken over. All mainstream parties are part of the problem, can’t you see that?
“There are no purely conservative parties in the west – not anywhere; they’ve all been taken over.”
No need to tell me that. I’ve been a follower of Hayek for 30 years. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
I recently improved my education by reading von Mises and James Burnham as well as Hayek. By 1960, all 3 of them were pointing out that the British Conservatives were socialists. Thatcher was a blip, and as soon as she’d served her purpose (destroying the trade unions), the Conservatives stabbed her in the back and returned to their leftwing fascist politics — curtail democracy, increase state power, appear to support a progressive social agenda, rely on government control of the media. Exactly what Mussolini and Mosley were advocating.
On the death of Thatcher, one of the British TV companies broadcast a documentary called “Thatcher the Revolutionary”. In that they explained that she was an anomaly in the Conservative Party’s history — that before her the Conservatives could only be described as socialist/fascist, and after her they returned to that.
The moment Islam makes the threshold and has the power to do so, it will do away with its pawns and stirrup holders. The irony of their stupidity is priceless, but nobody’s laughing, because it means paying the ultimate price for all of us.
That is something to look forward to.
Just imagine the face of Alice Schwarzer and Claudia “Fatima” Roth when they are informed that feminism does not conform to sharia. Ops.
They have to wear a burqua and they can only leave the house when accompanied by a male. Oh, you are not married? You do not have a son? Sorry, but you have to stay inside your flat. And no work allowed either. So ist leaving the house and risking a whipping or stoning, or staying and hoping the neighbours are in a charitable mood and if not, sorry, ist starving time.
And do not get me started on Westerwelle and Volker Beck. Yes, former secretary of foreign affairs and both members of parliament. And both gay.
I hope they show their faces when they are told about the new old rules of sharia.
Am I a sadist?
They’ve even had it demonstrated to them in Tower Hamlets and Bradford (and less publicly in other areas). None of it makes any difference.
Wikipedia hasn’t been updated. Surely someone here is up to doing that correctly?
Astonishing insight, Joe.
I think anybody who studied what Anders had to say during his trial (excerpts can be found on the internet which go beyond the mainstream media) would have realised that he was much smarter and had more depth in his understanding of various issues than many would have previously given him credit for – and I think they would also have got the inkling that there was more to this man’s cause than “counter-jihad”.
I have read a few articles now about Anders and the recent ‘revelations’ – but I have yet to read about why his ethnocentric notions (and insinuations about who the real pied pipers of societal change are) actually wrong.
I have followed Paul Weston for a long time, since the early SIOE days. I thought his old blog was excellent and was duly bookmarked as a must-read when something new was written.
There has long been a difference in us though, because I soon moved ahead to take on matters of an ethnocentric nature and Mr Weston did not.
However, Mr Weston has in recent months impressed me once again by finally coming out and saying in some recent videos that there is a racial/ethnic element in this struggle taking place and that, perhaps more importantly, “cultural nationalism” has generally been a failure.
Despite these quite brave and frank admissions, the problem still arises though that in these videos the concern is soon huddled back together as being some sort of Islamic problem only – citing, for example, the birthrates of Muslims and not talking about other groups or races of peoples in Britain and what that would also mean for the future composition of Britain and why it should matter, or why people have a right to think it matters.
This is one reason why it can infuriate me how there will always be this dividing line between pro-Jewish, more multiracial, multicultural “counter-jihad” movement (EDL, GoV etc) where – generally speaking – Islam and “leftism” or “liberals”are the only problem; and where if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth of Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine – and that the very orchestrates of what has been transpiring ought to be ignored as either not ever happening or being mere “coincidences”, because to suggest otherwise would be “anti-semitic”, ‘loony theories’ or just general “Nazi”.
Well, what if the National Socialists are correct in their more ethnocentric viewpoints and insights into the people pulling the strings of our demise – and that the counter-jihad is also correct in that Islam is a problem to be addressed?
I am sure Anders would have known that Islam was a threat and would have been supportive of the counter-jihad cause – but at the same time, I suspect he also knew that things were never cleanly one thing nor the other and that he had affection and affinity for his own ethnic group in their homelands of Europe.
As for the media, if they had understood or read his statements at the trial they would have known there was more to it than what was generally known.
The problem is perhaps that they don’t know their arse from their elbow – and have little comprehension of what distinguishes “counter-jihad” from “nationalism” and could not even begin to get their heads around the kinds of issues and ideologies which Anders was seeking to discuss or pass out to the wider public.
In their tiny, controlled, world, it is all the same – and as far as I remember, he was termed “far right”, “extremist”, sometimes “Nazi” and all the usual labels which are the bogeyman. I do not particularly recall him being described as “counter-jihad” in newspaper headlines and news bulletins, though it is fair to suggest that within our own bubble we all assumed he was counter-jihadi more than anything else.
The leftist media may well be a bit ignorant of what truly drives people like Breivik, or the counter-jihad movement for that matter, but of course they are also complicit in only giving out the messages and memes they want to give out.
Suggesting, for example, that the “counter-jihad” movement would or should get a smoother ride in the media because they are not really “nazis” (like Breivik) is not right, as it will curry no favour with them or their backers.
The media in general will not wish to give ‘air time’ to these kinds of discussions, especially the ones put forward by Anders Breivik, purely because they are dangerous to the status quo social-political hegemony they cling to and reside in.
They don’t want to offer people a different point of view, to allow them to join the dots, to make them think that they are not alone in their concerns or thoughts, to bring all these festering issues out into the open……
That is perhaps another reason why the fall silent, why they are not exposing this “huge” story that he was not an avowed “counter-jihadist only” after-all and that he had some ethnocentric leanings and social nationalist leanings too….
But are we seriously expecting the “leftist” media to care about the distinction and what it means? Are we expecting them to side up with the counter-jihadists because, (phew!), they are not those nasty “Nazis”?
Paul Weston is a very good writer and a very capable speaker. He is right to draw attention to the media and to renounce the violent activities of Anders Breivik.
However, much like the counter-jihad movement, not all “Social Nationalists” are advocates of violence either, and nor does it necessarily make the wider intellectual grasp of Anders Breivik wrong.
Mr Weston has in my view gone though a process that many of us have gone through. First there is the awakening that something is wrong. Then we question what all these people are doing in our country and why they are different. Then we discover that Islam is a problem that seriously needs to be dealt with.
Then we look at demographics of our indigenous populations, we look at all the other peoples also here who are not Muslims – working out how much time we have left in this situation we are just waking up to.
Along comes many restless nights juggling just what it is we are against and generally struggling to come to terms with it and struggling to break with our own codes of “morality” of what to think about race, nation, civilisation, etc.
Some of us then question as to how we got in this mess, who is still driving it today, why the media acts the way it does, who might disproportionately own control of these agendas, who came up with most “leftwing” themes and narratives to start with, and which groups are impeding our ability to address these issues.
This also becomes uncomfortable and difficult to deal with in a rational and professional manner.
Maybe Mr Weston is now somewhere between stage two and stage three, but desperately seeking to remain at stage two because it is less tainted and a little more easier to pronounce Islamic doctrine as the main problem we face.
It is without doubt a problem, but nor is it the whole story – and by the skinny of it, Anders Breivik may well have been more privy to the full story than many may have realised.
The trouble is that his actions do not really speak for any of our causes – and none of us can congratulate or otherwise support his chosen method of trying to deal with it.
Paul makes an excellent point about the media double standards of coverage and the “association” they manufacture (or neglect) with various ideologies and atrocities (as however best suits them).
When it is one of their pet-projects they distance the reality from the readership. When it is something on the opposing side to theirs, they throw out labels and connections to discredit the whole side.
The trouble for Paul Weston seems to be that he thinks that talking articulately as a counter-jihadist will somehow endear the media to the cause – and that by throwing other ideologies like “National Socialism” under the bus as they go about making their case over “Islam” alone, they will tend be left alone or given some degree of leniency.
I do not believe this will be true, and that by continually focussing only on Islamic issues and trashing the National Socialists who care for their race and their nation of people in ‘socialistic’ ways and well being, it will only serve to alienate people who are already aware and appreciative of the threat that Islam poses to the West, but who are also leaning towards ethnocentric and ‘nationalistic’ social and structural policies for the good of their nation.
‘In their tiny, controlled, world, it is all the same – and as far as I remember, he was termed “far right”, “extremist”, sometimes “Nazi” and all the usual labels which are the bogeyman. I do not particularly recall him being described as “counter-jihad” in newspaper headlines and news bulletins, though it is fair to suggest that within our own bubble we all assumed he was counter-jihadi more than anything else.’
Given his launch of his “Compendium” of counter-jihad writings on the day of the Uttoya massacre, it seems reasonable to conclude that such was the allegiance Breivik was asserting. People like Fjordman, the Baron, Spencer, Geller all pointed out that they had nothing to do with Breivik or his methods. They even posited AT THE TIME that Breivik was far more likely trying to damage the counter-jihad movement, and/or was probably insane. Their analysis of this has proven to be very accurate.
‘Suggesting, for example, that the “counter-jihad” movement would or should get a smoother ride in the media because they are not really “nazis” (like Breivik) is not right, as it will curry no favour with them or their backers.’
The two biggest myths of the 20th century were a) fascism/national socialism were not forms of socialism, b) islam is the religion of peace. The Leftist agenda could suffice to explain why the media/academics maintain those myths – as Hayek pointed out, without a positive counter-platform “conservatives” will be dragged along with the agenda of the Left. The Left have been determined to sanitise socialism from its connections with the genocide by the workers’ party in Russia and the genocide by Germany’s National Socialst Workers Party. The Left have only ever used any of their campaigns against racism selectively – as ways to undermine the ruling class: they had no opposition to fascism or racism when the fascists or racists don’t have white skin.
Their accusations of racist/fascist/nazi/right-wing/islamophobe are all used by the Left as modern day accusations of witch/heretic. Just as Stalin called any communist who deviated “a fascist”. The media are not interested in any substantive discussion about what constitutes fascism/nazism. Because such discussion reveals that the supposed “far right” were in fact still left-wing.
‘not all “Social Nationalists” are advocates of violence either, and nor does it necessarily make the wider intellectual grasp of Anders Breivik wrong.’
But they are all advocates of collectivism. And those who support collectivism support the suppression of freedom of speech and of opinion. The difference between National Socialists and International Socialists is barely of any relevance. How are non-violent National Socialists going to defeat an ideology whose followers are brainwashed into suicide bombing? Non-violent National Socialists will be as capable of resistig islam as non-violent christians.
‘who came up with most “leftwing” themes and narratives to start with, and which groups are impeding our ability to address these issues.’
Let me guess: you blame Da Joos?
The leftwing themes and narratives can be traced back to J.S.Mill and Rousseau. They can ultimately be traced back to islam (it’s just that westerners seem to have a blind-spot in admitting how extensive is the corruption in western civilisation caused by islam – Emmet Scott’s new book “The Impact of Islam” is the first step in identifying and removing this blind-spot).
‘The trouble for Paul Weston seems to be that he thinks that talking articulately as a counter-jihadist will somehow endear the media to the cause’
It’s years since I have spoken to Paul, so I can’t say that he thinks what you claim he thinks. His latest article at JihadWatch suggests the opposite, as he says “England is lost”. That doesn’t sound like someone who thinks the media can be persuaded or that they could even turn things round if they could be persuaded. Jewish academics like Walter Laqueur were pointing this out almost 10 years ago. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Days-Europe-Epitaph-Continent-ebook/dp/B004VMWJ8O
‘ I do not believe this will be true, and that by continually focussing only on Islamic issues and trashing the National Socialists who care for their race and their nation of people in ‘socialistic’ ways and well being, it will only serve to alienate people who are already aware and appreciative of the threat that Islam poses to the West, but who are also leaning towards ethnocentric and ‘nationalistic’ social and structural policies for the good of their nation. ‘
You are probably right: the counter-jihad movement will fail, and when it comes to crunch time, National Socialism and genocide will return to Europe. The break up of Yugoslavia showed us how this will all work out. Only on a contintenta scale, moving people 20 miles into another village will not be feasible, when civil war breaks out in Paris, Bradford, the Hague, Stockholm, Marseilles, etc.
Those who believe in liberalism (in the sense of Hayek) and universal human rights will not be able to mount a successful resistance to islam in Europe. For almost a century, the people of Europe have been deceived about what real “right wing” policies are.
The anti-democratic tendencies in Europe have been growing for 100 years; fascism didn’t die after WW2, it just got a better PR agency. I listened today to a debate where the chattering classes of Britain hugely supported a ban on people smoking inside their own cars. People who find such restrictions on personal liberty so amenable will not struggle to shift towards National Socialism. Hitler would have had no trouble banning the German people from damaging the health of their children by smoking in cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
Islamo-nazism will inevitably be met by euro-nazism. I regard Paul Weston’s writings as an elegy for european civilisation.
If I understand you correctly, B.A, then I agree with your analysis of Mr Weston’s position, but don’t see it as a problem.
When I go to a classical “Proms” concert at the Royal Albert Hall, the audience is primarily white, and perhaps younger than is the case at other presentations of similar music, but the culture appears still to be in decent health. It’s a shame there aren’t more people from other ethnic groups (and maybe surprising as Western classical music is so popular in Japan and, increasingly, China), but this aspect of European culture is not under threat from South Asians of Hindu or Sikh heritage- it would be if Islamic fundamentalists were in control.
“This is one reason why it can infuriate me how there will always be this dividing line between pro-Jewish, more multiracial, multicultural “counter-jihad” movement (EDL, GoV etc) where – generally speaking – Islam and “leftism” or “liberals”are the only problem; and where if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth of Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine…”
Breivik’s thesis is that there are two “wings” of the Counter-Jihad, much as you describe (though in your paragraph I quoted you seem to have forgotten to supply the other wing) — “liberal” and “nordicist”.
It is ironic that the “liberal” wing does tend to rail against “liberals” and/or “Leftists” as being part of the problem, thus ignoring the broader problem of millions of non-Leftists out there who are also myopic about the problem of Islam.
However, it’s something of a straw man to characterize that wing as believing that “if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth of Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine…”
The point is not that there are no racial problems outside of the problem of Islam; the point is that the dangers they pose are not as great. In order for the “Real Problemers” (i.e., those who believe that the “real” problem is not Islam but something supposedly broader and deeper) to regain cachet for their hobbyhorse, they must assert nebulous specters one has to infer — typical of conspiracy theory in general, where the problem always lies hidden with a multitude of clues which the believer can “see” in a kind of schizophrenic Gestalt epiphany. With the problem of Islam, on the other hand, we need no such inferences. The mountain of data is all there, and it continues to metastasize around the world like a volcano. Why the mainstream West refuses to take heed of this mountain of data, of course, is one major reason why some are driven to reach for the conspiracy theory — for such a state of mass denial does demand a suitable explanation. However, just because an explanation is screaming to be supplied, does not mean we should reach for anything that might imaginatively work. Certain considerations have to be respected — including a respect for Western Civilization, without which there remains little to fight for any longer, leaving the coherent proponent to steel himself like Mad Max for some kind of general apocalypse. But such a desperado option is not necessarily obligatory; I certainly as hell ain’t going to adopt it because some blogger tells me to and because he insists in his fevered imagination that all the evidence is “out there” if only I would plow through the jungle of circumstantial inferences he feels provide apodictic proof.
Pingback: Breivik’s Letter to the Media in German | Gates of Vienna