Terrorism, Mass Murder, and Media Bias

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

Terrorism, Mass Murder, and Media Bias
by Fjordman

In January 2014, Nick Robinson, the political editor of the British Broadcasting Corporation, said they had made a “terrible mistake” over their coverage of immigration for years. He admitted that they had censored legitimate concerns amid fear they could trigger racism. Robinson said BBC figures in charge during the 1990s and 2000s believed an open debate over immigration would “unleash some terrible side of the British public.” “They feared having a conversation about immigration.” One-sided reports meant that viewer’s concerns about the negative effects of mass immigration had not been addressed by the state broadcaster.

This is an open and frank admission of media bias and censorship. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that the same problem exists in other countries, too.

The topic of possible ideological bias or censorship in the established mass media was raised as a subject during the trial against Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo. ABB claimed that he had to retort to terrorism since he had no other way of being heard.

I still suspect that Breivik really is insane. This belief is even stronger now than it was three years ago. However, subjects of grave importance such as crime from violent immigrant gangs or how native Europeans are having their cultural heritage taken away from them were touched upon during the court proceedings. Unfortunately, partly due to Breivik’s erratic personality, these subjects were not dealt with in a proper way. Yet that does not mean that they are not worthy of debate.

Frank Aarebrot is professor of comparative politics at the University of Bergen, Norway. Research performed by him and others in Scandinavia proves that journalists have political sympathies that are far to the left of the general population. This situation has been stable for decades. Yet Professor Aarebrot is quick to reassure us that this has absolutely no impact on the political profile of their journalistic work, none whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, if you believe that journalists with far-Left political sympathies might slant the way the mainstream media report issues, you’re just as crazy as those who believe that Elvis Presley is still alive or that little green men from outer space walk among us and built the pyramids in ancient Egypt. That was the exact comparison Aarebrot drew in court in his expert testimony during the trial against Breivik in 2012.

But if journalists have some special ability or gene that makes them immune to the weakness of personal bias affecting that rest of mankind, why can’t neo-Nazis make excellent journalists? That would be the logical conclusion if we truly believe that the personal views of journalists have no impact on their reporting.

Bernard Goldberg is the American author of the bestselling book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. He mentions a study from 1996 among journalists in Washington D.C. showing that fully 89% of them voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, more than twice Clinton’s share among regular voters. 50 percent said they were Democrats; only 4 percent identified as Republicans. This very pronounced left-wing bias among leading journalists has remained remarkably stable for many years. Similar numbers will probably be found in Hollywood and the American entertainment industry, too, which have a major international influence.

Goldberg convincingly demonstrates with example after example how strong left-wing political sympathies not infrequently translate into lopsided reporting in real life, slanted in favor of left-wing politicians, organizations or causes. He repeatedly stresses, however, that most journalists honestly don’t see themselves or their reporting as “biased.” They tend to view themselves as smart, well-meaning and educated people without prejudice.

In every Western country for which I have seen studies, journalists have political sympathies to the left of the general population, sometimes quite far to the left. The question is: Does it matter?

I think it does. The mass media are incredibly powerful. They are the eyes and ears of modern societies and affect how we collectively perceive the world around us. If they distort our senses by viewing everything through rose-colored glasses, it becomes hard to accurately recognize and deal with problems.

Aslak Nore is an author, publisher and columnist at VG, Norway’s largest national newspaper. On May 26 2013, Nore published a commentary in VG on “enigmatic” Swedes. This was after immigrant-dominated suburbs of Stockholm had been rocked by riots on a scale unprecedented in modern Scandinavian history.

What were his views on the causes of these riots? Well, Mr. Nore blamed the mandatory “racism” of the white natives, especially alleged police racism, for partly triggering them. Finally, he blamed the “Swedish class society.” Obviously, Aslak Nore would be a strong contender for a Leni Riefenstahl Award for honest reporting.

In a particularly ridiculous essay, in November 2010 Nore declared that “smart” immigrants from Pakistan, Turkey and Chechnya will be “the new oil” after Norway’s oil wells run dry. He seemed to imply that there is something wrong with the brains of the natives, since these are inadequate and need to be replaced by non-European ones. Of course, if you look at the taboo subject of genetic intelligence measured in mean IQ, saying that Pakistanis or Turks have “smarter” brains than northern Europeans is nonsense.

If that was the case, how come they are incapable of producing innovative economies at home? You can further look at technological achievements. Moreover, a tiny Scandinavian country like Norway has produced more Nobel Prize winners than the entire Islamic world combined, including large countries such as Pakistan and Turkey. Aslak Nore thus uses the largest national newspaper in his country to publish such nonsense without any basis in facts, coupled with Marxist-inspired gibberish about “class structure” and “racism.”

Nore’s claims are echoed by most of the established media, yet they are factually wrong. In 2006 the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) published numbers indicating that immigration is so costly that it could wipe out much of Norway’s considerable oil wealth. The bill runs into tens of billions of kroner every year, a large sum for a small country. In 2013, the business daily Finansavisen published a series of carefully researched articles detailing how extremely costly non-European mass immigration is.

In Denmark, the historian and author Morten Uhrskov Jensen in his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”) demonstrated that the opening up of his country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition. Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders, whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia. Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance.

However, Uhrskov Jensen in his 2012 book Indvandringens pris (“The Price of Immigration”) showed the huge costs in monetary terms of today’s immigration. It’s not just about Muslim immigration, although that is an extreme case due to the increased threat of terrorism and other issues, but essentially all mass immigration from backward non-European societies to developed Western countries. We see similar patterns with Mexicans in the USA, for instance. Basically, with Third World immigration come Third World problems: rising crime, rising corruption, lower trust and higher welfare costs combined with reduced competitiveness.

Let me stress here that when the mass media want to, they can be unpleasant to pretty much anybody, from celebrities to common citizens. And yes, they can be nasty to individuals from the Left, too. In Norway, the politician Tore Tønne in 2002 committed suicide after negative media exposure. He was a Social Democrat.

What I am suggesting is that in certain situations there can be a lower threshold for the media to attack people on the political Right. This is especially true if these individuals or groups are critical of Islam, open borders or mass immigration. In such situations, the left-wing bias of many journalists can have important consequences.

There is the truly ugly case of the conservative philosopher and writer Henrik Gade Jensen. In 2003, he lost his job as a press advisor to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in Denmark. This was triggered by false and totally baseless accusations of “Nazi” connections that were presented by a radical left-wing academic and published in a left-wing paper. A decade later, Gade Jensen received an apology of sorts for these false accusations. He also received some money to compensate for the damage done. But it took years for him to settle into an established job and a new life. This despite the fact that he is a friendly, intellectual man and perhaps the least Nazi-like person one can find. Meanwhile, this incident hasn’t had any serious impact on the careers of the dishonest journalists who were involved in the scandal.

I doubt whether this incident would have occurred had it not been for the fact that the target was a conservative man working for a right-wing government that had put in place certain restrictions on immigration.

In Norway, one of the nastiest cases of the mass media abusing their power against individual citizens was the so-called paramedics incident in 2007. It involved two paramedics and their ambulance being dispatched to a park in Oslo. Ali Farah, a Somali man, had been physically assaulted and hit in the head by another African man. The white ambulance drivers decided not to take Farah to the hospital because he seemed intoxicated and urinated on the trouser leg of one of the paramedics. However, it turned out that the Somali man had more serious head injuries than they initially thought. This triggered a veritable media explosion.

Based on weak suspicions of “white racism,” the mass media, intellectuals and politicians launched what can only be described as a witch-hunt against the ambulance drivers. “This would never happen to a white man,” said the Norwegian-Pakistani lawyer Abid Q. Raja. Raja is currently serving as a Member of Parliament in Norway for the period 2013-2017.

The left-wing author Anne Holt, who briefly served as Minister of Justice for the Labour Party, wrote an essay in the paper Aftenposten about the allegedly omnipresent white racism this case represented. When not acting as a self-proclaimed champion of tolerance, Holt has labelled people she strongly disagrees with “ cockroaches.”

Both of the paramedics were suspended from service and became the target of widespread negative media coverage. Yet it turned out that the accusations of racism against them were baseless. They were cleared after an investigation by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision. One of them, Erik Schjenken, needed professional help as he was brought to the brink of suicide.

The columnist Marie Simonsen, political editor of the left-wing daily Dagbladet, stated firmly that the actions of the ambulance drivers represented the ugly consequence of racism. That’s a very serious allegation in a society where merely being accused of “racism” can be enough to destroy careers, even lives — at least if one is white.

The driver Erik Schjenken later sued Dagbladet, who were simply the worst of a very bad bunch, for libel. He has so far won his case in court, twice.

The high-profile investor Øystein Stray Spetalen has had a few clashes with the media, but he has the financial resources to fight back. He thought Dagbladet should have been forced to pay Schjenken ten million kroner, to make sure that malicious journalism is truly punished. In his view, this is even more important because the paper (and other media such as the state broadcaster NRK) openly speculated that the two ambulance drivers didn’t have the money to fight back. Schjenken proved them wrong, but that is a credit to his perseverance.

Spetalen was angered by the fact the Dagbladet’s editors showed no sign of regret even after they had been convicted. “Every time people see Marie Simonsen on TV or read her articles they should think of the enormous injustice she did to Erik Schjenken with her malicious writings about an innocent family man. Only a lousy human being does something like that,” said Øystein Stray Spetalen. He added that Simonsen’s comments about the two ambulance drivers should be used as a textbook study on how not to conduct journalism.

Erik Schjenken felt that no fewer than four ministers from the government of PM Jens Stoltenberg — Kristin Halvorsen, Bjarne Håkon Hansen, Sylvia Brustad and Manuela Ramin Osmundsen — had publicly contributed to the stigmatization of him as a “racist.” His colleague, the other ambulance driver, stated that his son had undergone psychological problems due to the false accusations of racism promoted by Kristin Halvorsen. She was then Minister of Finance from the Socialist Left Party (SV) in the Stoltenberg coalition government.

Recall that the Somali Ali Farah was injured because he was beaten by another immigrant, from Ghana. In Norway, a country straddling the Arctic Circle, one African man beat another African man. The result was that the ambulance drivers, who had dedicated their lives to helping others, became the targets of a verbal lynch mob led by the mass media. Their crime? They where white men, the lowest of the low in the Multicultural caste system, and therefore automatically presumed to be bigoted and evil. There is no presumption of innocence if you are white and accused of the thought crime of “racism.” You are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

In contrast, an African asylum seeker from South Sudan who was about to be deported in November 2013 brutally murdered three passengers on a bus in rural Norway. The mass media were then quick to assert that this had nothing to do with racism. One can imagine the reverse scenario, that a white man killed three black people on a bus. Does anybody seriously believe the media would not suggest that this was related to racism?

Even though there is a lot of street crime in Europe involving robberies, muggings and various forms of anti-white violence, this is rarely identified as “racism.” This betrays a powerful media bias.

Furthermore, let us consider the case of Breivik’s attacks in Norway in 2011. This triggered a veritable witch-hunt for people on the political Right who were deemed critical of Islamization or mass immigration. Would the mass media have been equally aggressive if a possibly insane terrorist had claimed to have left-wing sympathies? I doubt it. They certainly would have exercised more restraint if the killer had been a Muslim. As a matter of fact, we have already seen just such an example.

Between 2011 and 2013 there were two Norwegian citizens who became mass murderers by carrying out brutal terror attacks. The first one was Anders Behring Breivik. The second one was Hassan Abdi Dhuhulow. He was a Muslim man of Somali origins, but he grew up in Norway, spoke Norwegian and had Norwegian citizenship. In late September 2013 he and several other Muslims attacked the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. More than 60 unarmed civilians were systematically hunted down and shot in cold blood, a number comparable to Breivik’s attacks. Yet there are important differences between these two terrorists, as I have noted before.

While Breivik was utterly alone, Dhuhulow was part of a group of equally brutal terrorists and murderers. There was a lot of talk about Breivik’s alleged “flock” of supporters after his July 22 attacks. Yet Anders Behring Breivik in all likelihood carried out these attacks alone precisely because he found nobody else willing to participate in his massacre. Hassan Abdi Dhuhulow found a number of other people willing to join him in terrorism and mass murder. This is because, unlike Breivik, he really did come from a flock of supporters.

Many people were accused of allegedly inspiring Breivik’s mass murder. Among them were myself, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Daniel Pipes, Diana West and Andrew G. Bostom. Yet not one of these writers has ever called for terrorism or mass murder. Moreover, Breivik did not make stops during his massacre July 2011 to quote passages written by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Daniel Pipes, Diana West or Andrew G. Bostom.

Hassan Abdi Dhuhulow carried out his 2013 massacre along with a group of other like-minded individuals. This is at least partly because he was able to find other people who supported his murderous intentions and were willing to help him to carry out this mass murder. Dhuhulow found support for aggression, violence and potentially murder in the Islamic texts which he and his co-terrorists quoted.

Breivik’s massacre is likely to remain unusual, precisely because he did not come from a flock and did not have textual support from a major faith for his murders. Dhuhulow’s massacre is, on the other hand, likely to be repeated in different countries. This is because he did come from a flock of people who have textual support from the scriptures of a major faith for violent attacks.

Hassan Abdi Dhuhulow’s flock of militant Muslim supporters is set to grow, as long as the number of Muslims in the West continues to grow. Breivik’s massacre is not very likely to be repeated, whereas Dhuhulow’s massacre is likely to be repeated. This likelihood is increasing each day due to Muslim immigration.

Western mass media and political elites are currently reluctant to say this in public, however. Doing so would amount to an admission that they deliberately support immigration policies which expose their own citizens to a greatly increased risk of terrorism and mass murder.


For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

60 thoughts on “Terrorism, Mass Murder, and Media Bias

  1. These self-hating lefties need to drag their own white behinds out into the street and hang themselves from the nearest lampost with a sign round their own necks reading “guilty”. If they’re not prepared to do that, they really ought to [refrain from further vocalization] and give us all some peace from their craziness and self-hatred.

  2. Oh, Fjordman – ever reasonable…

    Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that the same problem exists in other countries, too.

    Let’s save time: could you give us the short list of the countries that don’t twist the news??

    Blessed are the reasonable for they shall be treated fairly…NOT in Norway, though.

  3. The left sees itself as ‘righteous’ in a very biblical way, and without any form of self doubt because its narrow meme base is constantly reinforced at every level of the education and media establishments.

    They will indeed avidly and violently remove the imaginary speck from the other person’s eye whilst ignoring the very real elephant blocking their own vision.

    That elephant has many names; Sobibor, Gulag, White Sea canal to name but a few. It will eventually trample the peoples of Europe underfoot all the while patronized and fed by those too addicted to the toxic after glow of socialist serotonin to see the real nature of the wild beast they have let loose.

    Socialism is a dangerous package rightly marked ‘fragile’ and ‘this side up’ it requires special handling because, when the chips are down, it lacks credence, and it also lacks the long term stability that the Judeo-Christian ethic provided to western societies. It is a political ice statue which looks good at the time of the party, but must be protected from the heat of everyday criticism if it is to see the rosy light of the morning after.

  4. All described and laid out in perfect detail two years ago in a set of very insightful essays over at The Brussels Journal entitled “Surviving Islamism … and Right/Left Politics: Churchill’s Principle” (see specifically Part III):


    In addition to the essayist, Peter Carl’s description of Breivik’s relation to Nazism, I think (judging from the comments here as well) all of us involved in the Counter-Jihad Movement would do well to take heed of the point of sticking to Peter Carl’s “Counter-Jihad Argument.”

    The reason The Baron, Robert, and Pamela, as Carl points out, are labeled as “Nazis” and why the entire movement is painted in a highly-damaging way as “right-wing” or “extreme right”, is because of the idiocy of continuing to harp on and on about “Leftists” and “Socialists” and the “Hard Left” instead of choosing and holding ourselves to the one argument that actually can be won:

    That is, that all of the people of the Right, Left, and Center who are U-N-C-O-N-V-I-N-C-E-D of the Counter-Jihad Argument (which Robert himself does well to describe as existing very much on both the Right and the Left), are focused on the protection of our “Common Freedoms” (e.g. HUMAN RIGHTS). They simply place emphasis on different points. To win the argument, one must make the right argument to show the inconsistencies of their respective positions – not bash their political color or ideology. Bashing people’s ideological preferences, as Carl rightly points out, only accomplishes TWO things: it turns people off and makes them write off you and those like you AND they cause us all to be painted over and over again as “Right Wing” lunatics. Thus, feeding right into the hands of both Breivik-like Nazis and Islamo-facsists alike.

    To succeed, as Carl argues, whether we like it or not, we must do exactly as Churchill did. We must realize that this is an argument over informing the U-N-C-O-N-V-I-N-C-E-D of the Left, Right, and Center about our common concern for Carl’s “Common Freedoms”. As Carl rightly points out, if ANY person thinks they are going to both change “Liberals”, “Leftists”, or the “Hard Lefts” political ideology…and THEN also win the Counter-Jihad battle, well, that person would be sorely mistaken (see Carl’s essays Parts I and II (linked to above)).

    Peter Carl’s analysis is 100% correct. The more that leaders and followers in the Counter-Jihad Movement continue on with Right-Left ideological mud-slinging and bashing – instead of actually creating a space and openness for discussion and pointing out the common ground of our Common Freedoms (which both Right and Left prize) – the more the Counter-Jihad will continue to alienate the UNCONVINCED of ALL political colors and the more the Counter-Jihad will be successfully painted as “Right-Wing”, “Extreme Right”, and “Far Right.”

    It’s all pretty simple. It’s not rocket science. It’s political psychology and human relations. Admitting this, however, first requires some real intellectual fortitude and honesty. If this adjustment can’t be made very quickly here, as Carl points our, we will soon be on our way to REAL Nazis (like Brievik) having a run at these problems in Europe’s not to distant future. If you don’t agree, I can only suggest that you take the time to read through the essays. Well worth the time. And, just as he was with Breivik’s relationship with Nazis, Peter Carl is fully on the mark.

    • I wish it were that simple. But it’s not. This is sad:

      creating a space and openness for discussion and pointing out the common ground of our Common Freedoms (which both Right and Left prize)

      It’s also naive. The Left is not made up of people who want a dialogue. They already know they’re right. Climate change? They’ve reached “consensus” and there is no further need to discuss it. That’s just one hot button issue. There are lots more. The false claims of “consensus” means nothing more than “SHUT UP”…

      Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students

      Sorry, but the Nazis are here. Only they’ve morphed into Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood. If you don’t know that, then you’re not dealing in reality. To get a clearer idea of what we face, read this essay to counter the Carl analysis:


      • Dymphna,

        Thanks. With all respect. We can see actually in the responses here today what Peter Carl shows us ALL to be up against (Right, Left, and Center).

        “The Left is not made up of people who want a dialogue.”


        “We need to root out, a witch hunt, demos, protests, outside the very homes were these people sleep, and publicly out them and out [their] crimes to the destruction they have and are doing to our culture, race, and societys in there pursuit of there utter mad goals.”

        Your response to Sobieski was fully correct. The only way this can be solved is to show to the UNCONVINCED (Right, Left, and Center) the ideas underlying Islam (and their results) to be what they are. Destructive garbage. To do that, requires “dialogue”.

        So whether you or anyone else believes that “The Left is not made up of people who want a dialogue,” it is fully beside the point. The ONLY way to get anyone to change their mind – unless you want to adopt Sobieski’s approach (which we see you do not) – is to actually engage the so-called “Left” on the point of contention. That is, that our “Common Freedoms” all disappear if we fail to criticize and express ourselves freely regarding religion – ALL religions.

        Again, whether any one of us has a contention with the “Left” over their ideology is also fully beside the point. Again, if you think that you or anyone else are going to get people’s attention by focusing on what they are programmed to disagree to (e.g. attacks on their political color/ideology) as opposed to focusing on what people of EVERY political stripe can (and must, if we are to survive…) agree to, that is, our “Common Freedoms” as defined by Peter Carl, then I would say quite confidently that anyone who believes that is “naive” and leading us all along a path to complete and utter ruin.

        You can be certain that I am the least “naive” of Counter-Jihadists. When I wrote: “…creating a space and openness for discussion and pointing out the common ground of our Common Freedoms (which both Right and Left prize)…,” well, I was not writing about that in some crazy, touchy-feely, dreamy, utopian manner. I mean basically what you wrote below in your response to Sobieski.

        To succeed, we MUST engage people – especially on the “Left”. Taking Sobieski’s approach – or, for that matter, self-righteously insisting that “The Left is not made up of people who want a dialogue. They already know they’re right” or bashing the “Left’s” ideology only turns off people who do not already think exactly as you do and drives them away from any possibility of ever being engaged. You can see in the comments here. They generally always consist of people boisterously (and usually quite self-righteously) “preaching to the choir.” The “Left” is no more self-righteous than are people on the “Right”. The evidence can be seen well enough in the comments here. So the solution is to say things that allow people to drop their defenses and engage on points that strike chords to which all Westerners of every political stripe subscribe: Churchill’s “one ideology” and Peter Carl’s “Common Freedoms.”

        Again, eternally, endlessly, unceasingly bashing the “Left,” as Peter Carl rightly points out in his essays, has a number of very extremely detrimental results:

        1) It turns off and turns away the interests of all and every one of the UNCONVINCED (Right, Left, and Center) who, with a properly focused message, might actually otherwise (and really should…) listen with an open ear;

        2) It irreparably smears the entire Counter-Jihad Movement as being by, of, and for the “Right,” the “Extreme Right,” the “Far Right,” and the “Right-wing” – thus, feeding right into the hands of both Breivik and his Nazi friends as well as every Jihadi all across the this world and the West;

        3) It needlessly distracts the focus and the conversation from points upon which all Westerners ACTUALLY COULD agree. Everyone, Right, Left, and Center, agrees that “Human Rights,” that is, Peter Carl’s “Common Freedoms,” must be preserved.

        If the UNCONVINCED (of the Left, Right, AND Center) fail to see how mindless and unthinking respect for “religion” and “religious sensitivities” can result in ALL other of those “Common Freedoms” going down the drain, well, it will be OUR – the Counter-Jihad Movement’s – fault. Why? Because we ourselves have by our self-righteous “Rightist” love-in and mindless “Left” bashing have tarred this movement so badly that all the world sees (and will continue to see…) it as nothing other than synonymous with nutcase “Right-wingers” and “Nazis” who are too self-righteous to actually perceive of which approaches and arguments actually will and will not work. Meanwhile, as Peter Carl correctly points out, the entire West goes down the tubes and Islam succeeds all by our own blind ineptness and stupidity.

        Churchill was definitely not naive in choosing the non-partisan, non-ideological “unity” approach he chose. Peter Carl is certainly not naive in rightly analyzing the situation and pointing out Churchill’s successes. And I am certainly not naive in any respect in relation to any of the questions related to Islam or the “Left”.

        The only thing “naive” is to continue to believe that “preaching to the choir” and pursuing an approach that Brievik has shown – and Peter Carl has explained – to have created the Counter-Jihad Movement’s very dangerous and immensely exposed Achilles heel: Actions and arguments that paint this movement as of and for the “Right” and that creates divisions and that fails to focus on our “Common Freedoms” – all while Islam unites and the UNCONVINCED are repulsed by our words and actions into milling about the West in mindless and deadly distraction. That, my dear Dymphna, is what we should all consider to be “naive”.

        • Your argument is fatally flawed because it is here under Anonymous. What are YOU afraid of??

          What we do here is far more than “preach to the choir”. I have way too many comments, emails, etc., saying “I’m so glad I found this place” to believe you. Our experience flies in the face of your rhetoric. Our readers support us with their resources: money, translations, essays, some first person investigations, etc. IOW, whatever they can do within their means.Donors come from northern Europe to India to Oz to North America.Even a few South Americans.

          None of us has pursued Breivik’s means. He is insane, as Fjordman judges. It was convenient for Norway to try him as a normal person – that’s why they kept having psychiatrists test him until they had a diagnosis that would permit them to put him on trial. The whole thing was a travesty. And now they’re using him again.

          Caroline GLick was right when she called Norway a totalitarian democracy and the US is fast on the road to the same place. The EU strictures on free speech grow ever more draconian and the same punishments will come here eventually. Read the EU Constitution on what speech is allowed.

          Islam unites because, as one imam pointed out, apostasy is the perfect weapon to keep the ‘faithful’ inside. He was frank that without the threat of death, Islam would’ve collapsed a long time ago.

          There aren’t many -any- Common Freedoms left to anyone outside the Socialist Utopian fence. We have seen too many persecutions to think otherwise.

          Why do you think the wide variety of our essayists remain anonymous? Because their jobs and relationships would be jeopardized if they published under their own names. The man who founded Brussels Journal knows persecution up close and personal. I’m sure that’s one reason he left…Paul Belien suffered greatly for his beliefs.

          Your theories do not match my experience. I have had emails from many, many ex-pats who fled Northern Europe because of the relentless politically correct pressure was punishing them for what they believed. I get similar emails from conservatives in deeply leftist enclaves. They are scared; they cannot find anyone to talk to and don’t dare show what they believe for fear of retaliation.

          Churchill was kicked out of office because he didn’t believe in the communistic labor/socialism that arose after WWII and was to do so much harm to the economic structure of his country. Neville Shute’s fiction of that period draws the delineation very well – and was one reason so many flocked to Australia.

          I first heard the expression “politically correct” back in the early 1980s. A friend was wearing a button that proclaimed “Not Politically Correct”. When I inquired what that meant, he explained American political reality to me. Up to that point, I hadn’t paid much attention. I was a bleeding heart liberal until my experience as a social worker kicked me in the teeth repeatedly. Multi-generational dependence on government handouts ends up destroying families: I saw it happen over and over again. And as long as I had my paperwork in, no one cared. The social work system is a giant middle class employment agency.

          It was disheartening to learn all those things; I couldn’t believe that what he was saying was true…but it proved to be much worse than that, much worse than Orwell’s dystopian future. In fact. Daniel Moynihan predicted what this entitlement culture would do to the black family when Johnson was pushing through his “War” on Poverty. The statistics show that poverty won. Now not only are fathers abandoning children, but mothers are too. And every day, the strictures about what one may say out loud grow more ludicrous.

          Every place in the US that the socialist Democrat machine controls is a cage of crime as the misguided & malign big government solutions make our culture increasingly degraded.

          This system is going to fall of its own corrupt weight as our debt and disarray mount. The second Civil War will be more gradual and more complete because it won’t involve large armies meeting on the Potomac.

          BTW, the Counterjihad is only part of our mission. The foundational values of Western civilization are under attack and it is those that concern us, too.

          • “Churchill was kicked out of office because he didn’t believe in the communistic labor/socialism that arose after WWII and was to do so much harm to the economic structure of his country. Neville Shute’s fiction of that period draws the delineation very well – and was one reason so many flocked to Australia.”

            He was voted out even before the end of WWII!

            Many who emigrated soon after the war ended could see what that meant, i.e. the population had fallen for labor’s promises and turned on the person who had rallied the people and government in their darkest hour – the emigrants realised what that meant, and wanted out. Kind of like the feeling one gets realising that it was one’s fellow citizens who elected Obama and (worse) re-elected him even after he had revealed his agenda!!

      • Indeed. 4Freedoms has been around for about 4 years, and has emphasized the threats to all our freedoms, and also emphasized the diverse victims of islam. The idea has not taken off.

        As someone who used to consider himself “leftwing” for 30 years, it has been a painful realisation for me just how unprincipled Leftism is. They are not interested in threats to everyone. They are only interested in talking up whatever cause de jour they can use to wrest more power from others.

        Indeed, I place the failure on the Right. The Right have failed for 70 years to insist that Fascism and Nazism were both leftwing siblings of Communism. Allowing the Leftists in the media and academia to slide the Nazis over to the Right has been disastrous. The vast majority of people become apoplectic when one tells them that all the major figures of fascism (Mussolini, Hitler, Mosley) were socialists.

        The Muslim Brotherhood was explicitly modelled on the National Socialists and the Communists. This is to be found in the first ever English book on the Brotherhood, written by a muslim supporter of the Brotherhood in 1954.

        For all the talk about “diversity” and “identity politics”, we’ve lived through decades of attacks on individual liberty and the promotion of collectivism. Without a revolution in thinking in the west in the next 30 years, collectivism is going to triumph. Islam is the original form of collectivism, of which communism and fascism are just echoes.

    • The proto politics of totalitarianism is progressivism and neoliberalism, the UK is currently at the muscular liberalism conjunction of the left and right, the political trajectory is towards an illusionary National Socialism.

    • This is simplistic.

      However my sense is that the left is not at fault per se. Marxists might be, but Marxism is just a code word for other ethnic and group conflicts anyway.

      There is considerable overlap between the Muslim presence in the west and multiracial society. Marxism was all about dissolving the nation and the state. That’s the bottom line.

  5. The left wingers are evil evil traitors to us all, this multi culti madness they have lied us into is the pathway into hell!

    There media promotion of homosexual marriage, as if this is normal natural thing, is no less another facet of there de construction of our morality, and family relations, in order that we dont breed and die out eventually, swarmed and overwhelmed by there proxy army of brown skinned muslims and black bogus asylum seekers, its really sickening what these lefties marxists have already achieved.

    These people deserve no mercy.

    These sickening man hating feminists, who never talk about what islam does to women, but attack white western men freely without let or hindrance.

    It is these keft wingers who are the real enemy of us all, gor without them we woukd not be in this mess that we are now!

    We need to root out, a witch hunt, demos, protests, outside the very homes were these people sleep, and publicly out them and out there crimes to the destruction they have and are doing to our culture, race, and societys in there pursuit of there utter mad goals.

    Left = nazis

    Islam = nazis

    Ban islam now!!!


    • Are you serious??!

      We need to root out, a witch hunt, demos, protests, outside the very homes were these people sleep, and publicly out them and out [their] crimes to the destruction they have and are doing to our culture, race, and societys in there pursuit of there utter mad goals.

      This is what the Left does even now. It is dishonest, bullying, and meant to instill fear into others. Do you honestly think that taking on their methods will change anything? Such tactics play right into the hands of those you would defeat.

      To propose banning Islam is to act like a Nazi…sad that you have contracted the very disease you rail about. To say anyone deserves no mercy is to set yourself up as judge and jury and executioner. You have slipped the bonds of Western civilization in this comment.

      NOTE: Please distinguish between “their” and “there”…

      • “To propose banning Islam is to act like a Nazi”

        Islam will have to be banned in the west. There is no alternative.

        And any non-islamic western civilisation that survives will only do so by adapting and reacting to the threat that is islam. That is what happened in the Middle Ages – europe was transformed (negatively) by the onslaught from islam. The Atlantic slave trade began in Spain, a country which had just got out from under the yoke of 700 years of islamic domination. They realised that to resist being conquered in future, they would have to be as unchristian and ruthless as the muslims were. If it hadn’t been for the muslim invasion of Spain (and the threat of future invasions) the Spanish would not have sailed west to find allies/escape routes from muslim-dominated europe.

        European jew-hatred was acquired from muslims. The first pogroms against jews started in muslim-dominated Spain.

        Those who survive the islamisation of europe without converting to Islam will have to become violent like muslims. Sikhism was the violent response to islamic violence in India.

        Personally, I think that people in the west are now too selfish and too pampered to survive. Islam will win.

        • Banning belief doesn’t work. And the West has already let enough Muslims in that banning isn’t realistic without violating our own core philosophy.

          I agree with you re Islam’s anti-Semitism. Too many people thought its influence began in the Middle Ages, but the Arab pirates destroyed the strong economy and connections among the Mediterranean peoples long before that. Egypt had been the breadbasket of the Med. Its cheap papyrus had made literacy within easy reach for small proprietors.

          The Arab slave raiders and destroyers pushed Egypt back a thousand years, as it did much of MENA. Large swaths of culture were annihilated or exist only in vestigial form now. There has been research done demonstrating that the island of Sicily, invaded so often, gradually took on the character of its invaders in order to survive. Very few cultures were capable of being that brutal.

          • Dympha, the West survived Islam not be adopting your suicidal notions of welcoming them aboard and attacking those who wanted to protect the West and it’s people and labeling them Nazis. There simply is no room for this particular group as they are antithetical to Western Civ and more to the point a cancer.

            Maybe in your view that’s incorrect and maybe they are really cultural enrichers. But so far that’s not been the case.

            Just in case look at what they have done to England. That will happen here in time. Politically at the national level, Islam is already verboten topic, just ask Michele Bachmann. Even Foxnews rarely mentions it anymore.

            Won’t be long for more pro-Shariah rulings to come on down from Uncle Sam.

        • Personally, I think that people in the west are now too selfish and too pampered to survive. Islam will win.

          It may be a mistake to view the future in a linear fashion. For one thing, Islam is the most materialistic of political world views.

          Islam’s “win” – which I doubt – may well prove its undoing. I suggest you look at the book on the sidebar, “UNCivilization”. It talks about the coming global chaos without ever mentioning Islam. To paraphrase one of my favorite book titles, “All God’s Troubles Ain’t a Muslim”.

          The world-wide demographic collapse, inexorably due in mid-century, is a game-changer. As the author says, we don’t know what it will bring because we’ve never been so interconnected before at the same time that we’ve never witnessed the breadth of the implosion.

          Even the UN believes it’s coming, and China has let up on its draconian one-child rule because of what is coming.

          Prognostications don’t work anymore because the data is too bent.

          • Can you elaborate on this? Seems like it needs a full article. You have mentioned it before.

          • This blog really should change its name to “Gates of Brussels” — as it seems long past time since its stewards and guest analysts thought (if they ever did) that Islam is the problem as it was in 1683 and 683.

        • If what you have in mind, is the follow up on the reconquista, the muhammedanians and jews vhere given the choice to leave or convert.

          A great deal converted fakely, which gave rise to the need of a legal process, a questioning.

          “The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave.”


          • “A great deal converted fakely, which gave rise to the need of a legal process, a questioning.”

            The Inquisition, the Slave Trade, the Crusades (Holy War), pogroms against jews, even homophobia are all facets of the contamination of christian europe by contact with islam.

            Buddhism in India was wiped out by islam. Buddhism did not form any resistance to islamic genocide.

            Western civilisation will either adopt some of the violent, oppressive evils of islam (as did Breivik), or western civilisation will be destroyed (as was Buddhism).

            It’s very likely that the muslim population of a country like Britain is already 10% (the elite have made provisions a few years ago to downplay these statistics, and are now abandoning the Census to ensure the truth does not come out). In the next 20 years, the numbre of muslims of fighting age, is going to exceed the number of non-muslims of fighting age. And as we’ve seen from the 330 muslims convicted of terrorism in the last 12 years in Britain, they will adopt the worst of tactics.

            The British government is currently planning to give life imprisonment to anyone who receives weapons training. That will apply to non-muslims as much as muslims. But it is the muslims who will take holidays in their “home country” of Pakistan, Somalia and get weapons training. The native Brits are being prevented by their own governments from being able to prepare to defend themselves.

      • Dymphna is absolutely right here. You can’t “ban” Islam. You can’t ban an idealogy or a belief, there should be no such thing as thought crime. Doing so goes against our own Western values.

        The problem isn’t Islam per say. If you put a bunch of Qurans each house and promote the Religion all over TV in say, a random 100% native Norwegian town(regardless of economic status), the Norwegians aren’t going to become Muslims. They wouldn’t buy into it. The problem is foreign people who are already Muslims(and not exclusively only Muslims either) coming here, and there is nothing wrong, immoral, fascist, anti-Western with closing the dang border and putting your own dang people as the #1 priority.

        Not sure what the original poster has against homosexuals either, yes we have a serious problem with birth rate in the West, it isn’t because the media is somehow promoting homosexuality. If anything, the media is promoting the acceptance of them being part of society, which they should be accepted as. I haven’t heard any newscasters saying dudes should go start having sex with eachother, lol. The homosexuals should be on the conservative side of things, because it isn’t conservatives or right-wingers that want to throw them off cliffs, it’s the Muslims. Marriage rights will be the least of their problems in a few decades.

        • You need to brush up on your history.

          In the past, Europe has indeed BANNED Islam. Spain has experienced Islam, repudiated Islam, and expelled Islam. Italy fought off Islam. Austria fought off Islam. Etc.

          ‘White Gold: The Forgotten Story of North Africa’s One Million European Slaves’ By Giles Milton is a good book to read about how Islam captured and enslaved Europeans.

          • You’re wrong. Spain didn’t fight off Islam, Austria didn’t fight off Islam. Spain fought off Arabs, and Austria fought off Turks.

          • Before you spout off, you should read the FACTS in the book White Gold (which I got from my public library for free).

            Europe did indeed outright BAN Islam which is WHY Europe had NO mosques or Muslims until the recent past when the need for oil became the driving factor in Europe accepting and supporting Islam. After all, the Muslim oil producers can sell – or NOT sell – their oil to whichever countries they choose. So, a bargain was struck: oil in exchange for masses of Muslim immigrants living well on welfare as an effective jizya tax.

            “Modern” Muslims to Europe: Pay me now AND pay me later.

            Heard of the Spanish Inquisition? That was Spain fighting Islam (and also Judaism because the Christian Spanish rulers believed that Jews had constructively supported hundreds of years of brutal Muslim rule over Spanish Christians).

            “But it was during the realm of the Moors in Al-Andalus (land of the vandals) which the Jews thrived the greatest.”

            “The occupation of Iberia by the Moors was a welcome occurrence for a well pummeled and remaining Jewish population.”


            As regards the Battle of Vienna:

            “Afterwards Sobieski paraphrased Julius Caesar’s famous quotation (Veni, vidi, vici) by saying “Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit” – ‘We came, we saw, God conquered’.”

            Please note that he meant that God conquered Allah….

            “The feast of the Holy Name of Mary is celebrated on 12 September in the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the victory in this battle of Christian Europe over the Muslim forces of the Ottoman Empire. Before the battle King Jan had placed his troops under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. After the battle Pope Innocent XI, wishing to honor Mary, extended the feast to the entire Church.”


      • It’s not ”Nazi” to want to ban Islam altogether. In the USSR, too, sects that were deemed ”savagely extremist” in their character were forbidden. I guess the country was not run by Nazis. This was used to ban Jehova’s witnesses for example.

        The question is not whether banning Islam is a good idea in principle (it is), but rather, how to accomplish it in reality.

  6. Fjordman is far too measured and reserved in this article.

    The media in the UK has been a sowing the seeds of destruction and division for decades. Fjordman points to a quasi-class division in the Norwegian immigration debate therein lies the clue – the UK MSM is not a syndication of balanced national interests media but a malicious propaganda machine reinforcing the personal interests of the few.

    Nick Robinson of the BBC is not a 21st century Enoch Powell, the few are seizing the immigration debate from the hoi polloi and will eventually decapitate it from the top of the political agenda.

  7. “Research performed by him and others in Scandinavia proves that journalists have political sympathies that are far to the left of the general population. This situation has been stable for decades. Yet Professor Aarebrot is quick to reassure us that this has absolutely no impact on the political profile of their journalistic work, none whatsoever.”

    From the 1960s until the late 1980s (at least), the Left were insistent that the media in general and news media in particular were biased towards the dominant ideology (liberalism, capitalism, etc.), reflecting the ideological biases of those who produced the output.



    Now that the media is suffused with Leftists, they insist that there is no bias.

    This is just typical of the Left’s core principle: anything is true if that gets the Left into power. They are the most opportunistic animals imaginable.

  8. “There is the truly ugly case of the conservative philosopher and writer Henrik Gade Jensen. In 2003, he lost his job as a press advisor to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in Denmark. This was triggered by a false and totally baseless accusations of “Nazi” connections that were presented by a radical left-wing academic and published in a left-wing paper. A decade later, Gade Jensen received an apology of sorts for these false accusations. He also received some money to compensate for the damage done. But it took years for him to settle into an established job and a new life”

    We’ve just seen this in Britain too, where a senior Conservative politician was pilloried and had to resign over the lies of the police officers who guard 10 Downing Street. It has taken that politician a year to clear his name, with all his contacts, money and influence, and it being in the interests of the government that his name be cleared. And the lie that brought him down was the claim that he used the word “pleb” which is nothing compared to being supposedly a nazi.

    One of my friends was arrested during a brutal police raid on a pub. The police inverted the truth (i.e. they claimed he assaulted them, when in truth it was the other way round). If not for CCTV which proved him innocent, he would probably have gone to prison, and would most certainly have lost the highly-paid job which he’s been doing for 10 years. My friend had to pay £10,000 to retrieve the CCTV footage, after the police had handled the machinery and it (surprise, surprise) disappeared. The judge in the court case stated that the police had blatantly lied under oath. The media ignored the case with the police being shown to be liars, no police will be penalised. But if the case had gone against my friend, then the media would have given that wide publicity.

    We are already in a fascist police state, with the media and the police in cahoots about who they destroy.

  9. “They where white men, the lowest of the low in the Multicultural caste system, and therefore automatically presumed to be bigoted and evil. There is no presumption of innocence if you are white and accused of the thought crime of “racism.” You are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.”

    “racist” is the post-WW2 equivalent of the medieval crime of being a witch. With witch-hunts (e.g. the Salem case), it is only by confessing to the “crime”, and implicating others that someone could get off. Thus, if someone is pilloried as “racist” in modern, westernised society they will be “a witch” until they confess, and implicate others. We see this in the case of people who work for organisations in Britain like Searchlight and Hope Not Hate. Each of these witchfinder-generals has “ex-racists” among their staff, and these are the most prominent in seeking out and denouncing others. These “ex-racists” are treated as morally pure beings, but those accused of “racism” who do not confess+implicate are never free of the label (even when there is no evidence that they were racists, as for example was the case with Enoch Powell MP).

    • Excellent. Soon we’ll have some pseudo-scientific “proofs” that will show our purported racism is evidence we need to be placed in prison – ummm…reservations.

      Ah, witchfinders. I see a whole new academic ‘discipline’ on the horizon.

  10. [Text has been redacted. Note from the Baron to Napier: The use of an unexplained and unlinked acronym in your comment is unacceptable. When you follow it with the statement “HBD readers will understand”, it becomes even more unacceptable.

    One suspects that you are attempting to slip code terms through in your comments so that people who focus on HBD issues (“human biological diversity”, i.e. race-based concerns) will be able to read your meaning, while others will not.

    Come on out and say exactly what you mean. I’ll either delete it, or I won’t. But this nudge-nudge wink-wink behavior simply will NOT do.]

    You all think we are all equal. Jante Law and all that.

    But the way that you do this is always an attempt to judge as lesser the whites who exist in close proximity to blacks and browns.

    Scandinavia does have an attractive beautiful population and a very attractive society. But you are rather stupidly bargaining away your country to nepotistic and violent foreigners.

  11. Some passionately held convictions in this thread, in some cases perhaps generating more heat than light?

    TL & Anon- brilliant! Glad not to feel isolated here.

    Dymphna- some of us on the Left do want a dialogue. That stupid woman (sorry, I can’t remember the name) who attacked white males for daring to criticise islamist misogyny in the (left-wing) Guardian recently attracted masses of critical comments.

    Al Swaeringen & MC- see above. I’m on the Left, not an academic, and entirely untroubled by self-loathing.

    Sobieski- homosexuality IS natural to those born that way; why the redacted would they choose such a “lifestyle” with people like you around?

    • Sadly, you’re a minority. I’ve had un-p.c. books ripped out of my hands on the way to the cashier at Barnes & Noble. The books themselves were special-ordered because they didn’t fit the Narrative; the ripper hissed at me I was “polarizing this country”. Gee, all by myself, too.

      I have hundreds of emails from folks who haven’t found talking to Leftists to be safe. I know folks who dare not receive post mail with anything questionable on the return address, and hear from those who have fled Leftist environments because they were so hostile…one reason that conservatives avoid academia is the inevitable shunning and shaming. Tactics Hillary has called for, while Obama tells his followers to bring a knife to the discussion.

      Surely you know you’re in a minority??

      • Dymphna,

        Thanks again for the time you put into your responses. You can [patronizing and insulting suggestions redacted].

        My argument was mistakenly posted as “anonymous”. For some reason, your login here didn’t accept my login. Whether my points – or anyone else’s – I can assure you that the points I raised are not somehow invalidated by the fact that they were written as “anonymous”. You yourself wrote of how many of your contributors contribute “anonymously” because they don’t want to lose their jobs. It makes their contributions no more or less valid. That said, you understood my words; and they stand in truth as they stand all the same.

        As to your points about people who thank you all and support you all and appreciate all you do here, there’s no reason to explain that to me. I’ve done the same. Except for the self-defeating issues and behaviors I have raised here with respect to the Counter-Jihad Movement, you provide good information. [Condescending description redacted].

        What I have brought up above in posting the article at The Brussels Journal…

        e.g. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/blog/21099

        was to point out this EXTREMELY important problem that Breivik has presented to the Counter-Jihad Movement and the world. Yes, Churchill dealt with these, as Peter Carl, points out – and barely won…. The very simple point is, [condescension and offensive characterizations redacted]. It alienates those who most need to read, hear, and understand the message presented here. Really.

        As people, I think we can all agree, having some measure of self-perception is a healthy thing. Also, having some insight into how others perceive us is also fairly important if we expect others to allow us to come close, to listen to us, and to drop defenses enough to have a conversation. [Tendentiously-worded mischaracterizations of Counterjihad blogs such as this one redacted].

        As an Ex-Flaming Liberal, you should hopefully be able to recognize that there was little that would have changed your mind or views if you had been confronted directly and bashed over the head and told you were an idiot. And even with the experiences you went through that brought you to your own “insights” does NOT actually necessarily require that you would have had to have stopped being a “Liberal” or a “Leftist” to see and effectively oppose the dangers of Islam and Islamization.

        As Mark H. above bears witness (as does Thilo Sarrazin and Heinz Buschkowsky (German Social Democrats), Villy Sovndal (a true Leftist from the Danish Socialist People’s Party), and the present Danish prime minister, Helle Thorning Schmidt and nearly the entire Danish Social Democratic Party, identifying with the “Left” and “Liberals” by no means determines whether one sees and can effectively take on Islam and Islamization. In the same way, Churchill also understood well that infighting at home would mean the absolute end of England and the end of the West as we knew it. Thus, he understood very well that inter-English fights over and about ideology while trying to defeat Hitler would be deadly; they were also – he well understood – were unnecessary since those of the “Left” during World War II could be convinced to join in the common fight for their “Common Freedoms,” as Peter Carl defines them.

        Here on this website, obviously, [patronizing characterization and description redacted]. Thus, if the Counter-Jihad Movement really wants to win this battle and enlist even politically correct individuals on the “Right” in their interactions with Islam like former presidential candidates Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul, Republican Governors Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Rick Scott (R-FL), and others such as Grover Norquist and the Conservative Political Action Conference​ (CPAC) – and all those UNCONVINCED who support them on the Right and Center, then we need to [insulting and unjustified characterization redacted].

        That means, whether we like it or not, making the realization that “preaching to the choir” is not going to get us to victory. It may feel good. It may be easiest. But it will only ensure the end of the West. Breivik has shown us all so well that bashing the “Left” has – and will only continue to – marginalize the Counter-Jihad Movement and make it easier to paint the entire lot of us as “Right-Wing” nutcases and self-righteous fascist Nazi thugs. As opposed to who we really are: People who (like those on the UNCONVINCED “Right,” “Center”, and “Left”) believe themselves to be upholding and deeply prizing our Western human rights (“Common Freedoms”). We are losing now.

        If this continues on as it is right now, there will be no possibility to engage others because soon enough real Nazis (as in Hungary, Greece, and elsewhere) will soon be popping up their ugly heads because WE were unable to [patronizing, platitudinous instructions and descriptions redacted] and it certainly beats the Sharia future we’re all looking at in the case WE fail.

        The point to it all is: Do we want to win? Or do we want to [engage in behaviors that are caricatured in offensive terms]?

        I prefer to win. In the mean time, long-live Peter Carl and the people at The Brussels Journal who arranged for his essays.

    • My experience of people on the left who want a dialogue is not that they want a dialogue per say, but they want to CONTROL a dialogue.

      I have never yet met anybody on the left who will tackle the ‘elephant’ of leftist murder regimes, they duck and weave and tell me about ‘extremists’ being different to ‘moderates’ and that the National Socialists were murderers on the ‘right’, and what about Pinochet….

      It is time for ALL socialists to remove the blinkers and take a hard look at reality from their privileged perches. I was once a member of the Labour Party in UK, that is until I discovered that it was basically a country club for middle class arts graduates who despised my lowly antecedents.

      Most of us who contribute on this web site have dabbled in socialism, but have rejected it having seen it for the religion it is.

      I left socialism before being kicked out, socialism does not tolerate heresy, and I am a heretic, I do not need radical academic demigods to think for me and tell me to do as they say, not as they do.

      • Well, what about Pinochet and Franco? One must get very very worked up to get upset about either of them.

    • Generally, lol, a leftie will reduce the argument against you to: “you generalize too much” or “that’s essentialist”.

      Here’s a thought experiment.

      Africa. Was it a good thing for Africans to be colonized by Europeans?

      Apart from the obviously dead Africans from the wars of conquest I’d say that it was an qualified good for Africa. Indeed the most advanced African state South Africa was in an absolute sense colonized in the true meaning of the word and the longest colonized. The least colonized areas like Ethiopia or Somalia are in a terrible state.

      Here’s the killer argument though. If the leftie disagrees you can point out that a massive European presence in said African states was true diversity. True multiracial and multicultural civilization in practice.

      • Opposition to “essentialism” is the latest ruse of the Left. Yet they will employ essentialism when it suits them. It is essentialist to claim that there are “black people” or “Africans” or “women” or “people of colour”.

        The debate about essences goes back to Plato’s doctrine of forms. It’s the same debate, given a new name. Anyone who rejects the idea of essences ends up having to talk only of particulars. There can be no generalisation.

      • Depends on what you consider good or success, Napier. A lot of negatives were removed due to colonization, such as stupid superstitions, cannibalism, and what have you, they also recieved infrastructure, education, farming(in the parts of Africa where the Arabs didn’t already introduce it to them pre-colonialism during the medieval period), and yes, as outrageous as it would sound to a lefty, colonialism also brought the end of slavery in Africa(Europe did bring a larger than before demand of slaves however, but that doesn’t have anything to do with colonialism, as this was pre-African colonialism and the Africans were capturing eachother), but a lot of the problems of Africa today can be atributed to colonialism, such as poverty, large casualty wars, genocides, civil unrest, and disease. The biggest one is probably starvation and unsustainable population growth/size in comparison to population output.

        Africa’s total population number really should not be what it is today. Pre-colonialism the population of sub-Saharan Africa was tiny, compared to Europe and other places. They were simple hunter-gatherers, scattered around, with a few exceptions in north-west sub-Saharan Africa and north-east sub-Saharan Africa due to the Arab influence there. Pretty much, in 1870, Lagos(which obviously wasn’t a city yet, I mean the land-mass) is comparable to -insert random small 1870 English town here-, while 1870 London is comparable to today’s Lagos in size proportion. The land-mass of Nigeria probably had the population of one English Duchy/region, now it’s 2.5/3 times more populated than England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales combined.

        This is due to the introduction of Western medicine, technology, urbanization and forcing a population into a culture which they arguably were and are not ready for.

        From that came poverty, starvation, and rampant disease, etc. Africans pre-colonialism weren’t starving, hunter gatherers, while having to work harder than us, weren’t lacking food by any means, and were healthy. Africa has plenty of arable land for farming and pumping out a mass amount of food, enough to supply the entire whole world, the people just don’t have the capability/technology to do it, as opposed to a people like the Dutch who work off such a small amount of land but provide a large portion of Europe’s food. On another note, the spear can’t really inflict huge casualties, and the Africans wouldn’t even have crossbows, let alone guns if it wasn’t for Europeans, but I suppose guns are a product of trade rather than colonialism. Call me crazy, but the people of Africa should still be hunter-gatherers, and I think they’d be better off for themselves as such.

        However, if you define success simply as more people, more lives(I wouldn’t argue against that), no matter what the consequences or circumstances are, then Europeans did Africa the biggest favour they could’ve possibly done with colonization. Leftists should thank us and build monuments of prominent leaders of colonialism if they think that, lol.

        Then there’s the huge tragedy of the way Europe handled the transition into post-colonialism. Africans didn’t draw their own borders or decide their futures, Europeans did. Realistically, there should be atleast 10x more countries in Africa than there currently are, if we go by the best basis of a country is culture, ethnicity, things people have in common. It’s actually a perfect example of why multiculturalism or multi-ethnic society doesn’t work, the 5 million casualty Hutu-Tutsi genocide could’ve been avoided if they had seperate states, along with a lot of African wars. If you mention this example to a lefty though, they’ll try to find a way to blame it on something else, lol. Although, maybe they would just find another excuse/reason to kill eachother, so maybe the lefty would be right in that case.

        On another note, the funniest thing a guilt-ridden anti-colonialist can say is we stole their resources. Can it be theft if no one was even using them before us?

        I think if the leaders during colonialism saw London today, they would’ve turned the ships back and left Africa alone. Although, maybe they’d be absolutely awe-struck by the tall skyscrapers/buildings and put the whole foreigner-infested London in the back of their heads, lol. Make it East London, then. East London still has automobiles, though.. :s

    • “…homosexuality IS natural to those born that way; why the redacted would they choose such a “lifestyle” with people like you around?”

      Many homosexuals are CREATED by homosexuals who practice often long term homosexual pedophilia which thoroughly confuses young vulnerable children and teens regarding their sexual orientation.

      And yet, the homosexual lobby insists that the state should deny parents of children and teens who have been homosexually abused and confused to secure licensed counseling for their children – licensed counseling which might lead to homosexual pedophiles being tried and convicted for pedophilia BEFORE the statute of limitations runs out on their often prolific crimes.

      “‘One could argue that children under the age of 18 are especially vulnerable with respect to sexual identity and that their parents’ judgment may be clouded by this emotionally charged issue as well,’ Judge Susan Graber wrote for the court panel.”

      Thus, the state admits children and teens are “vulnerable with respect to sexual identity” and simultaneously ranks and represents the interests of the homosexual lobby OVER the opinions of parents and licensed counselors and confused CHILDREN and TEENS who might request licensed counseling to deal with the after-effects of homosexual pedophilia.

      It might be more likely that a homosexually abused child or teen will seek counseling for homosexual feelings rather than for being sexually abused – especially with the fear factor if the homosexual pedophile is still present in the child’s or teen’s life. However, a licensed counselor would ask the questions that would lead back to the source of the homosexual feelings which might be homosexual pedophilia.

      “The activities of pastors and lay counselors who are unlicensed but provide such therapy through church programs are not covered by the law.”

      Please note that many pastors and lay counselors ARE also licensed counselors….


      Additionally, many homosexuals are CREATED by secular governments and/or religious cultures that disallow heterosexual love (Communist Chinese Revolution, Islamic countries, and prison cultures) leaving people to gravitate to same-sex partners who are available.

      • “Additionally, many homosexuals are CREATED by secular governments and/or religious cultures that disallow heterosexual love (Communist Chinese Revolution, Islamic countries, and prison cultures) leaving people to gravitate to same-sex partners who are available”

        Yeah, because Maoist China was THE gay place to be between 1950 and 2013. Only outdone by those fabulous gay parties that the Nazis threw in Flossenbürg and Buchenwald. And when Castro gave those Cuban gays those best parties in the Cuban concentration camps. Because Castro was more of a fairy than Stalin was – and if Stalin was going to be throwing all those fabulous gay parties in the Gulags, Fidel was not going to be out-done. Hell, Cubans are way better dancers than Russians.

        No wonder so many Chinese, Russians, Cubans and Germans flocked to homosexuality in the 20th century. Who wouldn’t want to be skeletally thin — let the breeders be obese, gays could be svelte and wear those wonderfully flattering vertical striped uniforms.

        Of course, it’s just the biased Cultural Marxists in control of the western media who hid the truth about all those fabulous gay parties, where no expense was spared to convince people to be come pansies in the concentration camps and Gulags.

        I’ll never forget those people I met in the 1980s and 1990s, who told me how they’d been given electric shock treatment by psychiatrists, intent on making them gay. All because the nuns couldn’t stand the idea that the teenagers in their care should want to be straight.

        • There are a lot of horrific situations that I will NEVER forget either – and those situations involve friends and relatives who have been the victims of homosexual pedophilia or attempted pedophilia and the lifelong ramifications of those experiences on those individuals.

          It might be acceptable if a legislature objectively considers verifiable information and testimony about a medical subject and then votes to make a law against licensed counselors using a specific medical procedure or drug on children based on evidence.

          However, in this case, it appears that the legislature 1) bowed to political pressure from the homosexual lobby and 2) passed a law forbidding FREE SPEECH about homosexual behavior to children who may very well seek counseling to deal with the effects of ongoing homosexual pedophilia. It appears that this law will interfere with the discovery of homosexual pedophilia by licensed counselors who would be required by law to report these crimes to the authorities for prosecution.

          Who benefits when often prolific homosexual pedophiles are free to create homosexuals? All homosexuals benefit from the increased number of homosexual partners created by homosexual pedophiles.

          Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3

          California law status: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/california-gay-conversion-therapy-ban_n_3837922.html

          New Jersey law status: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1392

        • Homosexuality in Prison

          “In prison rape, the perpetrator and victim are almost always the same sex (due to the gender-segregated nature of prison confinement).”

          “Research has shown that juveniles incarcerated with adults are five times more likely to report being victims of sexual assault than youth in juvenile facilities,[7] and the suicide rate of juveniles in adult jails is 7.7 times higher than that of juvenile detention centers.[8]”

          Here’s another freebie courtesy of the Knockout Gang: “In 2010, Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 140,000 inmates had been raped while incarcerated. [1] and there is a significant variation in the rates of prison rape by race. Many studies have pointed out the prevalence of white inmates being raped by blacks.”


        • Sexual Repression in Mao’s China

          “The ‘sent down youth’ were young people raised on a diet of sexual repression during the Cultural Revolution. They were encouraged to leave the cities in their hundreds of thousands and live in the countryside. Many of them learnt about sex and sexuality from each other in the villages as they began to grow up and start to question the values they had held during the Cultural Revolution.”


          Years ago, I read an article by a Chinese woman who revealed that she had engaged in a secret lesbian affair with a fellow worker because romantic love between men and women was disallowed in her “worker’s paradise.” Her poignant story was that she would have preferred to get married and have children, but that China disallowed male-female relationships, love, and marriage at that time. She and the other woman engaged in the lesbian affair because they were both very far from home in a very foreign situation without any friends and relatives – but with the need for the basic physical human contact of a hug.

          Under Mao, even married Chinese people had it hard:

          “[Mao’s] regime nailed everyone down to a place of residence, making it impossible for most people to move. Tens of millions of married couples posted to different parts of China couldn’t live together. Given 12 days a year to visit each other, they were condemned to almost year-round sexual abstinence. While his people endured such constraints, Mao indulged his every sexual caprice.”


          Wei Xu’s 2011 doctoral thesis entitled FROM MARRIAGE REVOLUTION TO REVOLUTIONARY MARRIAGE: MARRIAGE PRACTICE OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IN MODERN ERA 1910s-1950s is an absolutely fascinating read with many interesting examples.

          “On the one hand, the policy theoretically recognized women as independent, free, individual and equal in terms of the Communist revolution and economic production. On the other hand, it strategically convinced women that the paramount qualification of a communist revolutionary was to obey absolutely the Party’s direction, even when it was regarding matters as private as love and marriage.”


        • The Pink Swastika

          “Many founding and high-ranking Nazis were homosexuals.

          “The evidence indicates that Adolf Hitler himself was a homosexual.

          “Persecution of homosexuals by the Nazis was for show to deflect from themselves and keep the German public fooled. And only feminine type homosexuals were then persecuted. The “Butch” homosexuals who founded Nazism viewed femmes as lower than heterosexuals, not even men. The persecution of a small percentage of Germany’s femme gays was a public relations move to obfuscate the Nazis’ own perversity and placate the German masses.”




      • Don’t know if you’re still following here, Egghead, but answer me this: if homosexuals are “created” by paedophiles, why are there nearly as many gay women as men?

        • Hi Mark,

          The “American Psychological Association itself has actually moved away from asserting certainty about the origins of homosexuality, declaring in their most recent statement on this question that: ‘There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. . . . Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.'”


          Perhaps different men and women are homosexual for difference reasons?

          Might males want to emulate power of past abusers?

          Might females who were victims of pedophilia want to avoid associating with men if they associate men with pain? I heard a young woman on America’s Next Top Model say that she was deathly afraid of men because she had been raped by a man. Coincidentally, the same young woman identified herself as a lesbian.

          “Many gay celebrities have admitted they were victims of childhood sexual abuse including Rosie O’Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Anne Heche, Julie Cypher, Melissa Etheridge, swimming star Greg Louganis, and Chastity Bono, who disclosed how she was seduced as a child into the “gay” lifestyle by one of Cher Bono’s lesbian friends. Additionally, many of the young boys seduced by priests were drawn into the homosexual lifestyle by the experience.”


          • Hi Egghead, Interesting post; I think we can agree that Cher is not an ideal parent!

            I’ve a friend, now round sixty, who’s been ambivalent about his gender since teenage; he no longer paints his nails, but still keeps one long as a token, and wears his hair long despite the odd reminder that it’s ageing; I believe he still wears drag in private. I’ve another, from an Orthodox Jewish (not Hassidic) background, who told me some years ago that he was bisexual; to this day I’m not sure he’s told his wife, but their gay son married his male partner last year. I hope both men know and trust me well enough to have said if they’d been abused as children.

            Only anecdotal evidence, I know, but I would submit that it suggests that ambiguity over gender and sexuality cannot be entirely accounted for by nurture (or lack of it).

    • “some of us on the Left do want a dialogue. ”

      It’s too late for that. Islamo-nazism was something the Left would have objected to when it raised its head 30 years ago, except that the nazis had brown skin, so the Left kept quiet.

      When the full evil of islam dawned on me 4 years ago, I had a choice to try and find leftwing organisations who were opposing islam, or join the EDL. I looked around and realised there were no leftwing organisations at all. In the 1990s it was only gays like Peter Tatchell who were opposing islamic-nazism. They got no support from the Left. In fact, it was Tatchell who was threatened by the state with criminal prosecution for his opposition; the Left did not step in to support him and the other queers at Outrage.

      20 years later, and the muslim population of Britain is 200% bigger. 330 of them have been convicted of terrorism (if the other 95% of the population were drawn to anti-muslim terrorism, there’d be 7000 of us in prison). Islamic nazism is now the standard thinking in 20 major muslim organisations in Britain. Nothing is going to stop the future civil war in Britain. And it is a civil war that I believe muslims will win. We are not indoctrinated with the idea that murdering innocent people will assure us entry into paradise after our death as suicide bombers.

  12. Another good study on media bias was done by UCLA’s Tim Groseclose, and repackaged in a book for general consumption–“Left Turn: How Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.”

    Using methodology originally developed by a “liberal” (because most trains of thought that are labeled “liberal” tend to have very illiberal real-world effects) professor colleague for evaluating bias, he adapted it for finding the bias found in hundreds of articles produced by dozens of mainstream media outlets.

    His conclusion: the media here very much tends to lean to the left, both in terms of the angles it takes on certain stories, as well as determining what stories are worth reporting or not.

    But, he didn’t just stop there. He took it a step further, and evaluated its effects on the electorate, and concluded that the bias swayed them towards the left as well.

    • Interesting Amazon reviews:

      Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind

      Here’s one of particular interest:

      “This book serves up the most convincing evidence for media bias I have seen, ever. Tim Groseclose is the leading academic scholar in the area, but this is a smartly-written book which every person can read for enlightenment and also for pleasure.”–Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics, George Mason University, and co-author of the internationally acclaimed economics blog, http://marginalrevolution.com/

      It’s of interest bec Tyler Cowen is an economist at George Mason University. Their p.o.v. is convincing because it reflects reality rather than theory.

      Much as F. Bastiat did.

      • Wow. Marginal Revolution has online courses on economics. If there is one place we all have a lot to learn, it is “the dismal science” – which of course is neither a science in the true sense or even dismal…not unless you’re a Keynesian.


        • As someone with a burgeoning interest in economics (in part thanks to the economic illiterates in federal power at the moment), thanks for the resource!

          • “economic illiterates in federal power”

            Scratch that. The Congresspeople are economic terrorists with federal power. Our ‘dear’ leaders know EXACTLY how the current economy works and how the economy can be re-made to benefit their personal pocketbooks – which is how and why Congressmen become millionaires via their time in office….

            It turns out that the Democrats and Republicans award key committee chairs and memberships based on fundraising of party members for the party. The highest fundraisers get the very best assignments. Of course, fundraising consists of shakedowns of the commercial entities that are ‘governed’ by the congressmen. While they are shaking down the commercial entities for party money, the congressmen also take rewards for themselves – stock trades that function as bribes, promises of future jobs for themselves and their loved ones, etc.

            “The never-before-published lists [of mandatory party dues] are reprinted inside the new book Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets, written by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer.”

            “Schweizer contends that the common belief that outside forces and special interests seek to bribe Washington politicians is wrong. The reverse is true: lawmakers use a series of ‘brass knuckle legislative tactics’ to politically extort wealthy interests and industries into forking over large political donations—some of which can then be funneled to a politician’s friends or family members.”

            “According to the author, committee assignments have far more to do with fundraising prowess than policy expertise.”


  13. I’m a lefty on everything except immigration and cultural marxism(well, there’s probably a few more things as well), unfortunately. I wonder what official title I get, though. Probably just “racist”.

  14. Pingback: Breivik, the Useful Nutcase « Snaphanen

Comments are closed.