Green Dawn

A new German government headed by the Greens is becoming more and more likely in the near future. The following essay discusses the ramifications of that prospect for ordinary Germans.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Politically Incorrect:

Socially acceptable “climate neutrality” is impossible

by Wolfgang Hübner

Since the catastrophic flood, “Climate Policy” has become more popular again. After the Baerbock disaster, the Green Party will put all the levers in the media — to which it is so extremely inclined — in motion until the federal election in September to hammer the electorate: Man-made climate change in the world must under all circumstances and at all costs be slowed, at least in Germany. Incidentally, it is precisely the most anti-national political force in this country that tries to score points in terms of climate and energy with a completely unrealistic, narrow-minded nationalist course. Because little Germany, which does not want to control its national borders, can of course not set any limits on the weather or the climate.

But it is easy for the Green Party to spread such nonsense. The other established parties have long since submitted to varying degrees to the irrational Climate Religion. And the Federal Constitutional Court, firmly in the hands of these parties, has, as is well known, sanctified everything. Nobody knows how the gigantic amounts of energy that are required now, and even more so in the future, will be produced in Germany after nuclear and coal-fired power plants have been phased out. But if you look at the problems from a religious point of view, you don’t necessarily have to worry. After all, there are countries that continue to rely on nuclear power, coal or gas and like to earn money selling energy supplies to the promised land of wind power fanatics.

All of this has to be paid for by the many millions of energy consumers in the most densely populated Germany that has ever existed. But that’s not all: Since the insane goal of a so-called “climate neutrality” between Flensburg and Constance is being striven for, measures are to be implemented in all areas of economy, traffic and everyday life that will be absolutely certain — namely expensive! All political parties and actors know this only too well. But that is precisely why they are extremely reluctant to talk about it. One more reason to do it. Because the desired “climate neutrality” will not be expensive for its political and economic profiteers, but for taxpayers and energy consumers; that is, the overwhelming majority of Germans.

Since the willingness to embark on political adventures such as “climate neutrality” often stutters or even falters, at least with one’s own money, the climate-active parties are very keen not to cause any unrest among the electorate. Even the Green Party wants to make the expected burdens “socially acceptable”. And their established competitors blow into the same horn with different lung strength. But all of this is nothing more than deliberate political deception. Because even with only a superficial consideration of the problem, it becomes clear: For the majority of Germans, “climate neutrality” will be associated with significant losses in income and without consumption. Because the German state cannot possibly even cushion the burdens in a “socially acceptable” manner, let alone compensate for them.

Continue reading

The Long Arm of Big Pharma

The following video is an excerpt from a discussion on a French TV talk show. The topic is alternative treatments for COVID-19, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. One of the participants explains that major medical journals such as The Lancet suppress the reporting of certain information because of the financial clout exerted by Pfizer and other major pharmaceutical corporations.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for subtitling and uploading this video. I don’t know who the translator is; Vlad obtained a video with a translated subtitle file already included:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Thanks to Social Marketing, You Will Be Assimilated

They really, really, want us to get vaccinated.

Whom do I mean when I use the word “they”? Well, for starters, there’s the government. All Western governments, in fact, even that of Hungary. “They” also includes the major media, Big Tech, the MSM, the universities and secondary schools, and all major philanthropic organizations. All of them are pushing relentlessly for all citizens to submit to the injection of an experimental medical treatment that uses messenger RNA, and whose long-term side effects are completely unknown.

For as far back as I can remember, I have never experienced such a relentless full-court press by all social and political institutions in pursuit of a single goal. Perhaps the war effort from 1939-1945 was like this, but I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know.

Before I started researching the propaganda push behind the vax, I had never heard of the term “social marketing”. It is an important concept in this dystopian age, so we would all be well-advised to learn more about it. The California STD/HIV Prevention Training Center — which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is a joint project of the California Department of Health Services, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch, the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, and the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine — gives the following definitionof social marketing:

Social marketing is the use of commercial marketing principles and techniques to improve the welfare of people and the physical, social and economic environment in which they live. It is a carefully planned, long-term approach to changing human behavior.

So one group of people — presumably quite small — uses subtle manipulative techniques developed by behavioral psychologists to change the behavior of another group of people — presumably much larger — and make them conform to a standard of behavior which the first group has devised and considers optimal.

My instinctive reaction to such a practice is: What arrogance! What hubris!

We ordinary plebs think we know what’s good for us, but they know better. And they see nothing wrong with conning us into thinking the way they want us to think.

I bring all this up because of a paper that was published by The National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH, as you may recall, is where Dr. Anthony Fauci rules over a little fiefdom known as NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The paper is entitled “Key Guidelines in Developing a Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy” [pdf]. It was published in August of last year, but I didn’t find it until a few weeks ago.

It is beyond my level of analytical competence to peel back all the layers of manipulative strategy found in this paper, so I’ll just highlight a few significant points. I recommend reading the whole thing carefully, if you have the time and the stomach to work your way through all the sociological jargon.

First, a word on some of the terminology used. A person who receives an injection with the experimental mRNA treatment is said to engage in “vaccine uptake”. Those who decline to take the vaccine are said to experience “vaccine hesitancy”.

In the epistemological framework of the paper there is no acceptable rationale for not being “vaccinated”. Those who have not been vaxed are either vaccine hesitant — in which case they will eventually do their duty and get the jab — or they are malicious actors who have been convinced by evil anti-vax propaganda to resist the injection, and thereby put themselves and their loved ones at risk of contracting a dangerous and potentially lethal disease.

In the mindset of the authors of this paper — and all the official pro-vax propaganda — it is not conceivable that one could investigate the available facts, think carefully, and make a reasoned decision not to get the jab.

Citizens are expected to give their informed consent to the procedure, yet it is impossible to give informed consent. The long-term side effects of the mRNA treatment are unknown, and will remain unknown for at least five more years. Therefore no one can be fully informed about the treatment. Giving informed consent is simply not possible.

But none of that matters to those who are pushing the jab. My reasoning is considered fallacious and maliciously motivated, and my arguments would be removed from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other Big Tech platforms if I were to make them there.

There is only one possible outcome from the point of view of the vax pushers. You may be “hesitant”, but you cannot make a decision not to get the jab, and they will prod you and punish you until you do.

The first thing to notice about the NIH paper is that it’s not primarily an American document, despite its being published by an agency of the United States government. The spelling of certain words — for example, “sceptics” — serves as a clue. And it makes complete sense when you see the names and credentials of the four authors:

  • Jeff French of Strategic Social Marketing Ltd and the University of Brighton
  • Sameer Deshpande of Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University in Australia
  • William Evans of George Washington University
  • Rafael Obregon of UNICEF in Paraguay

Mr. French is the lead author, so one may presume that it was his spell-checker that approved the spellings that no native American speaker would use.

Two of the authors list social marketing in their credentials, so we may deduce that the NIH has subcontracted with expert social marketers to produce strategies and guidelines to induce vaccine hesitant Americans to get the needle into their arm as quickly as possible.

The abstract outlines the techniques that will be recommended (emphasis added):

This paper makes the case for immediate planning for a COVID-19 vaccination uptake strategy in advance of vaccine availability for two reasons: first, the need to build a consensus about the order in which groups of the population will get access to the vaccine; second, to reduce any fear and concerns that exist in relation to vaccination and to create demand for vaccines. A key part of this strategy is to counter the anti-vaccination movement that is already promoting hesitancy and resistance. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a tsunami of misinformation and conspiracy theories that have the potential to reduce vaccine uptake. To make matters worse, sections of populations in many countries display low trust in governments and official information about the pandemic and how the officials are tackling it. This paper aims to set out in short form critical guidelines that governments and regional bodies should take to enhance the impact of a COVID-19 vaccination strategy. We base our recommendations on a review of existing best practice guidance. This paper aims to assist those responsible for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake to digest the mass of guidance that exists and formulate an effective locally relevant strategy. A summary of key guidelines is presented based on best practice guidance.

The paper’s introduction defines vaccine hesitancy:

Continue reading

Hungary vs. the EU — Who Will Win?

I wouldn’t have Péter Szijjártó’s job for ANYTHING.

Mr. Szijjártó is a member of the National Assembly of Hungary, and holds the office of foreign minister in the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. It is in the latter capacity that he is obliged to serve as the whipping boy of the European Union. Hungary under Viktor Orbán and Fidesz is the designated enemy of the progressive right-minded globalist apparatchiks of Brussels, and the Hungarian foreign minister’s job is to cower before them, cap in hand, in the European Parliament, in front of the European Commission, or in the television studios of various state media outlets in Western Europe.

That last function is what is recorded in the video below. Péter Szijjártó has been summoned by the BBC to appear before a relentlessly abrasive inquisitor and answer for his government’s sins against progressive orthodoxy. In particular, he is grilled about his country’s recently revised law that prohibits propagandizing for sexual perversion in Hungarian schools.

Mr. Szijjártó maintains his unruffled good humor and calm demeanor throughout this segment. I don’t know how he manages not to tell the guy: “You can take this interview and shove it up your [nether orifice].” And then rip off his mike and stomp out of the studio.

You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Homo-Hate in Non-Homogeneous Rotterdam

The article below is an appropriate follow-up to yesterday’s report on homo-hate in Amsterdam. A report from Rotterdam has reached similar conclusions about the culture-enriching aspect of homo-hate in that city, and also identified Moroccans as the group which expresses most of the Jew-hatred in Rotterdam.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from Barendrechts Dagblad. Note: Leefbaar Nederland (Livable Netherlands) in Rotterdam was the party that the late Pym Fortuyn belonged to:

“Homo- and Jew-hatred often come from non-Western quarters”

July 23, 2021

Rotterdam and region, IJsselmonde News

Concerning anti-Semitism and discrimination against the LHBTIQ+ community, attackers often have a non-Western background. That is what the victims say in several investigations, writes the Leefbaar Party counselor Tanya Hoogwerf, who takes these reports seriously and still wants an accelerated investigation supported by Rotterdam.

Her first attempt was voted down on July 8 of this month. “The community council thus continues to look away from reality. To stop anti-Semitism and homophobia, a harder approach is required, and there must be a serious investigation into the opinions and backgrounds of the perpetrators of anti-Semitism and homo-discrimination,” Hoogwerf emphasizes.

“The research shows that many Jewish residents of Rotterdam don’t dare to wear a kippah and that they have little trust in the community approach to anti-Semitism.

“The investigations with conclusions about the perpetrators of homo-hate and Jew-hate are piling up,” reports Hoogwerf in the name of the Leefbaar faction of Rotterdam. “Recently the report ‘Action Investigation Anti-Discrimination LHBTIQ+’ appeared in Amsterdam, in which the investigators reported that they encountered similar characteristics in regards to the perpetrators. The report states,

‘Through the respondents of the investigation, the perpetrators often were described as Amsterdammers with a non-Dutch background.’”

Will you stop looking away?

In addition, this year the report “Openly Jewish, but not always” appeared in Rotterdam. This investigation among Jewish Rotterdammers shows that the majority have the idea that the anti-Semitism that they and others experience comes mainly from Muslims. “Some respondents specifically name young Moroccan men as the group that most often expresses anti-Semitism in public.”

“The European Union has also conducted investigations into the backgrounds of the perpetrators of anti-Semitism. In 2018, a large European investigation into anti-Semitism reported: Almost one-third (30%) reported that the perpetrator was someone with an (apparent) Islamist-extremist belief. In 20% of the incidents, the perpetrator, according to the victim, was someone with a leftist political view. In 13% of the incidents, someone with a rightist political view, and in 5% of the incidents, someone with an extremist Christian view.”

The letter to the Rotterdam city leadership ends with the question from Counselor Hoogwerf: “Do you have a plan to stop looking away and engaging in the politics of symbolism, and will you finally get to work with a hard approach to homo-discrimination and anti-Semitism? And specifically concentrate on those who cause this terror?”

Homo-Hate in Non-Homogeneous Amsterdam

For many years it has been well-known that the bulk of hateful speech and behavior towards homosexuals in Western Europe comes from culture-enrichers. When homosexual couples get beat up on the street, the perpetrators are almost always immigrants, typically Muslim ones. Yet this is something the migrant-lovers of the left-wing parties have always denied. Their story has been that intolerant right-wingers are responsible for all the homo-hate.

All that has now changed, at least in Amsterdam. A new official report has forced the lefties to acknowledge that most violence against gays is committed by culture-enrichers. Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from De Dagelijkse Standaard:

Green-Left alderman Groot Wassink orders an investigation into homo-hate: “The Amsterdam homo-hater is often an immigrant”

by Bart Reijmerink
July 20, 2021

Victims of homo-discrimination in Amsterdam state that the perpetrators often have a non-Dutch background. Those are the findings contained in the report, “Action Investigation Anti-Discrimination LHBTIQ+”, which was created by the Green-Left alderman Groot Wassink. Of all people, a Green-Left member now has to reluctantly recognize that homo-hate in Amsterdam often comes from a “non-Dutch background” zone.

The party that always would rather sweep the defective and problematic integration of certain population groups under the rug now has to recognize that most homo-hate in Amsterdam comes from immigrants. A striking fact: The publication date of this report is February 1, according to De Telegraaf, but the report is only now being made public. Perhaps the Green-Left had to process the result of the investigation.

The Amsterdam JA21 party member Annabel Nanninga could only sneer at Green-Left and other parties who have ignored this problem for years: “From this report, it emerges crystal-clear what Green-Left and the other council parties have stubbornly looked away from for decades: Homo-hate commonly comes from Moroccan boys.”

Amsterdam has finally become a victim of its own political correctness; an overwhelming majority of the Amsterdam city council for years was completely left and ruled the city for decades. Meanwhile, the violence against the LGBTI community only grew, and for years you could not state the facts without being made out to be a racist. But with the findings of this report, even the Green-Left has to recognize that the violence in large part comes from certain groups.

The translator notes that there is also a similar report out of Rotterdam.

The Mullahs’ Mosque in Hamburg

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Die Welt:

Iran mosque in Hamburg is supposed to implement “Islamic revolution”

For years, the Islamic Center Hamburg (IZH) has staged itself as a non-political meeting place. New findings from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution show how tight the lines are to Iran’s regime — and to a terrorist organization.

At the Hamburg State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV), there are new findings about the close links between the Islamic Center Hamburg (IZH) and the Iranian regime.

Current Iranian documents serve as evidence that the IZH is an “outpost of Tehran bound by instructions,” the LfV states in a multi-page report that Die Welt has evaluated. The aim is to “export” the Islamic revolution worldwide.

This is particularly relevant as IZH representatives have been denying allegations of political influence from Iran for years. In addition, the controversial mosque community still receives political backing from Hamburg’s red-green Senate. The new findings also concern connections between the IZH and the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The director of IZH, Imam Mohammad Hadi Moffateh, affirmed months ago in an interview with Die Welt: “Neither before nor after the revolution did the Islamic Center Hamburg have any connections with the Iranian state.” At the same time, Moffateh confirmed that he was in personal contact with state leader Khamenei.

The LfV emphasizes that new documents even show that the IZH head is bound by instructions to the regime. In several letters addressed directly to Moffateh, he was described as an “honored representative of the Supreme Leader, Head of the Islamic Center Hamburg”. The IZH is the sponsoring association of the Blue Mosque on the Outer Alster.

“This is a quasi official confirmation that Mofatteh is to be regarded as the official deputy of Khomeini’s successor Ayatollah Khamenei”, confirms the LfV. Moffateh had received another letter from a well-known Holocaust denier.

“ACCORDING TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE IZH CONTINUES TO STAND FOR AN ISLAMIST REGIME THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE VALUES OF THE BASIC LAW.”

— STATE OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAMBURG

The protection of the constitution accuses the IZH as a whole of unbelievable self-portrayal as an independent institution. “The newly acquired knowledge confirms that the IZH is one of the most important institutions of the Iranian regime in Europe”, LfV spokesman Marco Haase clarifies in an interview with Die Welt.

Continue reading

The Cultural Enrichment of German Cities and Towns

Miguel Klauß represents the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) in the regional parliament for Baden-Württemberg. The following op-ed from PolitikStube was translated by Hellequin GB:

Miguel Klauß: Germans are being driven out of their own cities!

What was reported from Stuttgart last week can be taken as a blueprint for the whole of Germany: More and more, a neglected, migrant milieu of oriental, Arab and African-born, predominantly male youths are taking over the public space, creating an “unstable security situation” and making life hell for the remaining locals and ancestral natives — until the latter give up and move away.

For anyone who walks through Germany’s inner cities with open eyes — especially in the west, where the “Verbuntung” [colourfulness] and “diversity” are already well-advanced (and if they have been emptied due to Corona, then at the hookah bars, junk shops, Turkish supermarkets, kebab shops and falafel stalls and betting shops the traffic will be uninterrupted) — it will not be possible to overlook the “change” that Greens such as Katrin Göring-Eckardt were looking forward to years ago.

In Stuttgart this week the local press reported on increasing rabble and brawl on the Kleiner Schlossplatz. Last year, at the “kick-off event” of this new Swabian city tradition, including brutal attacks on police officers and looting by the “event and party scene”, most of the people of Stuttgart hopefully assumed it was an isolated case. But the problem has persisted. No wonder that countless Stuttgart residents agree with the business owners and landlords in complaining about their suffering — and calling on politicians to finally do something.

Of course, all of this has long ceased to be a Stuttgart problem — and is certainly not a temporary condition that could be remedied, in the way you could get rid of rioting punks, beggars and homeless people through regulatory measures in city centers thirty years ago. No, it is only the beginning of an inevitable demographic development that diffuses from the big cities into the medium-sized cities and from there into smaller and smaller units, until at some point the countryside is the last to be affected. We are experiencing creeping land-grabs by problem migrants with zero willingness to integrate — especially since there will soon be nothing more to integrate into, or the question will be who should adapt to whom.

In Berlin, Cologne, the Ruhrpott and Frankfurt-Krankfurt, too, the orientalization of inner cities is accompanied by increasing crime rates, loss of homeland, changes in the cityscape and the increased emergence of no-go areas. German is no longer spoken here, customs and traditions from the 1001 Nights apply and conflicts are resolved according to old customary applications of the law. No wonder that fewer and fewer Germans still dare to go out into the streets in their hometowns. #ZeitfürdieAfD Germany. But normal.

The Wickedness of Wikipedia

Ten or fifteen years ago Wikipedia was a biased progressive outfit, but still in general a fairly reliable source of information. Despite their ideological preferences, its editors actually did try to be fair and objective much of the time.

Not any longer. Wikipedia, like most other major online resources, has abandoned any pretense of balance. If a topic has any current political relevance (and what doesn’t these days?), Wikipedia suppresses any information that doesn’t fit the Narrative.

Wikipedia’s co-founder caused a stir recently with his remarks about the unreliability of the resource he helped develop. Below is a Swedish take on Larry Sanger and the leftward march of Wikipedia.

Many thanks to LN for translating this article from Fria Tider:

Founder: “Do not trust Wikipedia”

July 18, 2021

Wikipedia’s left turn has now gone so far that no one should trust what is written in the digital encyclopedia. That’s what Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger says, reports the Daily Mail.

Larry Sanger — who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales — comes forward with harsh criticism in an interview with the site Unherd.

Last year Sanger caused a stir when he stated in a blog post that Wikipedia’s neutrality policy is now “dead” because the content on the site is so politically rigid.

Also on Swedish Wikipedia, there is a group of left-wing activists who angle the content of articles concerning political issues to the detriment of their opponents. Since right-wingers do not have the strength to create accounts on the site and oppose this, left-wing activists can continue with their behavior.

Larry Sanger tells Unherd that he no longer trusts the encyclopedia he once created himself.

Left-wing activists have distorted English-language Wikipedia to the point that many articles can now be considered pure propaganda, he states.

When asked if you can trust the encyclopedia, he answers: “You can trust that Wikipedia will give you a reliable establishment point of view on almost everything.”

Sanger takes as an example the way articles about left-wing politicians such as Joe Biden are cleaned up on critical issues, and the Republican perspective is notable in its absence. However, articles about politicians on the right like Donald Trump are full of criticism from a left-wing perspective.

The corruption scandal surrounding Joe Biden’s son Hunter can hardly be read about at all on Wikipedia, the founder further points out.

Continue reading

July 22, Ten Years On

Ten years ago today Anders Behring Breivik murdered 77 people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya. Of all the Counterjihad activists who were impacted by the political blowback from the attacks, none was more affected than Fjordman. Below are his remarks on the occasion of the anniversary.

July 22, Ten Years On

by Fjordman

Sometimes life can be very strange. When I was eating lunch in my small basement flat in Oslo on July 22, 2011, I did not anticipate that in a few hours my country would be rocked by a brutal mass murder. And I certainly did not expect that these events would also turn every aspect of my own life upside down.

Suddenly and without warning, I was thrown into the epicenter of an international media storm. Less than two weeks later, I had evacuated my home and fled from Norway out of serious concerns for my safety. At this point, I was publicly accused of being a possible accomplice to mass murder, and the suggested brains behind an international terrorist network. If my life in the summer of 2011 had been the script for a film, it would have been rejected as being too improbable to happen in real life. Yet all of this did happen to me, plus a lot more. All because of the actions of a man I have never once met in my entire life, not even for a cup of coffee.

Ten years later, things have calmed down somewhat. I have managed to reestablish a reasonably stable personal life. However, this is a new life in a new country.

I quietly moved back to Norway in 2017, to see whether it was possible for me to have a normal life there again. The answer was no. Three and a half years of applying for jobs turned out to be futile. I got no job whatsoever, not even as an unskilled laborer in factories, butcheries or the fishing industry. I applied for such jobs, too, not just for work in offices or shops.

In early 2021, I therefore decided to leave Norway again, for the second time in less than ten years. It is unlikely that I will return in the foreseeable future for anything other than short visits.

A decade of smears following the July 22 attacks by Anders Behring Breivik has left its mark. Norwegian media still publish new articles suggesting that I inspired mass murder. New comments are still being published on social media claiming that I have the blood of children on my hands. Not every month, fortunately, but from time to time.

Being quoted in Breivik’s confused compendium/manifesto is by far the greatest curse of my life. Nothing else even comes close. But perhaps it is possible to be cursed and blessed at the same time. I was also blessed with being surrounded by kind people. Both old friends and new friends alike.

I was homeless for some time. Friends in Denmark referred to me, only half-jokingly, as a political refugee from Norway. My first temporary home was with my friend Steen Raaschou in Copenhagen. He was exceptionally patient, and allowed me to occupy his sofa for months at a time. I also stayed for a while with professor emeritus Bent Jensen and his lovely Russian wife Tatjana. In the spring of 2012 I spent several months in the USA, and never lacked a bed to sleep in. My friend Ned May from Gates of Vienna helped me with this arrangement*. Not all of those who helped me probably want to be named. But they know who they are, and they have my gratitude.

In 2011, I had a part-time job in Oslo, working with young people suffering from autism. After the massive and extremely negative media focus on me in July and August of 2011, it was impossible for me to keep doing this job. Frankly, it was probably dangerous for me to even stay in my old flat. So I suddenly no longer had a job or steady income at the same time as I had to spend money on lawyers.

Continue reading

A Summer of Madness

Ten years ago I walked this street; my dreams were riding tall.
Tonight I would be thankful, Lord, for any dreams at all.

— Robert Hunter, from “Mission in the Rain”

Tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack in Norway. On July 22, 2011, a man named Anders Behring Breivik detonated a truck bomb in central Oslo next to government headquarters, killing eight people. While police and emergency services were dealing with the aftermath, Mr. Breivik drove to the island of Utøya, where a summer camp for Socialist Youth was being held. There he methodically shot and killed sixty-nine teenagers with a high-powered rifle. When police finally arrived at the island, he calmly surrendered.

Anders Behring Breivik was a neo-Nazi, but that fact did not emerge until several years later, when he wrote a letter to multiple media outlets and admitted that his declared affiliation with the Counterjihad movement had been a strategic misdirection, to spare his Aryan nationalist comrades from persecution. That part of his letter to the media was widely ignored, and was never publicly reported by any major outlet. To this day he is widely identified as an anti-Islam ideologue.

Before he committed his atrocities, Mr. Breivik had arranged the media distribution of his manifesto, or as he preferred to call it, “the compendium”. It was a lengthy, rambling treatise. It contained some of his own writing, but most of it consisted of extensive quotes from various English-language writers, the most prominent of which were Fjordman and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

Those writers and others mentioned in the manifesto became the focus of a media frenzy beginning the following morning. Progressive pundits applied their usual pseudo-syllogism to the Utøya massacre:

1.   Breivik admired Fjordman.
2.   Breivik massacred innocent people.
3.   Therefore Fjordman was at least partially responsible for the atrocity. Q.E.D.
 

As I mentioned above, the Butcher of Utøya did not really look up to Fjordman; his admiration was a feint. So even the pseudo-syllogism was wrong. But none of that mattered; any information to the contrary was ignored by the left-wing media. Fjordman became an object of universal loathing. In Norway he was Public Enemy #1, in some ways eclipsing Breivik himself.

Up until that time Fjordman had only published his essays under a pseudonym. Beginning on the morning of July 23, the press and internet sleuths began an intensive effort to unmask him. It was only a matter of time before his real identity was uncovered, so after retaining counsel and making himself known to police, he outed himself via an interview with the tabloid VG. After that he fled the country and went into hiding.

And it’s a good thing he did: there were calls for him to be arrested and tried as Mr. Breivik’s accomplice, despite the fact that the two had never met, and Fjordman had never advocated violence in any form. But Norwegian public opinion did not bother itself with such trivial matters as facts and the truth. The slaughter on Utøya required a scapegoat, and Fjordman was chosen for the role.

He lived outside of Norway for a number of years, and only returned when the risk of arrest had diminished. However, he was unable to find work. Any prospective employer who was aware of who he was would refuse to hire him, and if he somehow found a job, even a menial one, he would be discharged as soon as his employer became aware of his identity. Now, ten years after the attack, he is living outside the country again, since he is unemployable in his homeland.

And, regardless of Mr. Breivik’s admission that his admiration for Fjordman was a ruse, Fjordman is still widely known as “Breivik’s mentor”.

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

I won’t go into the Breivik affair in great detail, since this is primarily a reminiscence about the effect the atrocity had on Gates of Vienna and the Counterjihad in general. To learn more, check out the archives for the period from July 22, 2011 to ca. November 2011. Or look up the relevant items in the Fjordman Files. The trial of Anders Behring Breivik sucked up a lot of our blogging oxygen in the spring of 2012; see Circus Breivik for a relevant sample.

Because Gates of Vienna was the main venue for Fjordman’s writings, and was mentioned repeatedly in the killer’s manifesto, this site was put under the media’s klieg lights beginning the day after the massacre. We were thrust into a prominence we had never seen before (or since). It was a hideous kind of fame that I would never have asked for — they say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but my experience in the summer of 2011 makes me vehemently disagree.

In the first few weeks we received hundreds (maybe thousands) of emails. Some of them were simply requests for information, but they were mostly hate mail, sometimes in Norwegian and Swedish. Various media outlets wanted to contact Fjordman, and I dutifully passed the messages on to him, but he didn’t respond to any of them.

The number of comments at Gates of Vienna (which was still on blogspot at the time) rose into the hundreds for each post, many of them from obvious trolls and provocateurs employed by one or another state intelligence service. They soon became unmanageable, so we reluctantly closed the blog to comments for a couple of months. When we reactivated them, we made them subject to moderation, and they’ve been that way ever since. It’s frustrating and annoying for commenters to have to wait to see their contributions appear, but otherwise Dymphna and I would have been unable to cope with all the trolls and provocateurs.

By the beginning of the week following the attack, media outlets started contacting me. They somehow managed to obtain my phone number, and I received calls from newspapers in Norway and the UK. Needless to say, I declined to say anything to them.

During our fifteen minutes of lurid fame we were mentioned in The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other illustrious publications. The following report from the NYT told its readers that Anders Behring Breivik had commented on Gates of Vienna several times:

What they said was quite true. Fortunately, I had already been alerted to the fact by a European contact, who told me the pseudonym that had been used by Mr. Breivik, so I was able to track down all his comments. Some people urged me to delete them, but that’s not the way we do business here at Gates of Vienna. First of all, nothing ever disappears completely from the Internet; it can always be found in the Wayback Machine or other web archives. But more importantly, I don’t believe in hiding the truth, whether it makes me look bad or not. So I collected all of the Butcher’s comments and reposted them.

Other things published by major media outlets, particularly the British tabloids, were not as accurate. The Washington Post published my name and something about me that was completely, factually false. I sent them an email demanding that they retract and correct their error, but I knew that nothing would happen. All I could do was post about what they did and ridicule them. If I had been a famous movie actress or best-selling novelist who could afford to retain high-powered lawyers, I might have had more success. But the WaPo knows it has nothing to fear from minnows like me.

Other papers, especially the tabloids, published even more ludicrous falsehoods about Gates of Vienna — who we were associated with, where we got our funding, etc., etc. And they asserted various bogus things about other people in the Counterjihad whom I knew personally — so-and-so is funded by the Koch Brothers, or the Mossad, or whatever. Just absolute nonsense.

That summer taught me not to believe ANYTHING that I read in the media unless it is corroborated by multiple independent sources and has a breadcrumb trail that leads back to verifiable facts. Which doesn’t leave much. Reading media news reports has become a form of entertainment for me, like reading mystery novels or watching The Simpsons.

The general effect on the Counterjihad was catastrophic. A lot of sites, especially those in Europe, closed down for good. A number of Counterjihad activists I knew personally soiled their breeches and fled the field at the first whiff of grapeshot. I must admit that I became exasperated with them — I said, “You knew how serious this work was when you got into it. What did you think we were doing, playing tiddlywinks??”

However, in retrospect, I’ve had to acknowledge that they did what they had to do. Unlike me, most of them had day jobs. They stood to lose a lot if they were exposed. Some of them had families to support. I can’t judge them. They dropped out of sight, and I haven’t heard from them since.

A few people urged me to shut down Gates of Vienna. But my Scots blood comes to the fore at such times, and my natural response is defiance. I said, “F**K THAT S**T!” [emphasis in the original] and soldiered on. It was a rough time, and I didn’t get much sleep for the first couple of months. But we weathered the storm.

On the whole, however, it was a major setback from which the Counterjihad never fully recovered. The resistance to Islamization has never returned to the level of July 21, 2011. Freedom of speech has been eroded even further, and sharia is now de facto in force in much of the West.

Dymphna and I always thought that Anders Behring Breivik’s machinations had been guided and assisted by a certain three-letter agency with the assistance of Norwegian intelligence. His “compendium” was obviously in large part not his own work, and his selection of “mentors” was exquisitely chosen to do maximum damage to those who opposed Islamization, at the exact time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the thick of collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood in what eventually became known as the “Istanbul Process”. Resistance to Islam was a thorn in her side, and Anders Behring Breivik helped remove it.

I don’t think mass slaughter was part of the plan, however — the Norwegians would never have co-operated with such an operation. I think the intention was to let Mr. Breivik put together his scheme, and then roll it up at the last moment before it was executed. There would have been a prominent arrest, followed by maximum media publicity for his manifesto.

However, just before the plans matured, Wikileaks released a damaging series of documents showing some of the things [agency name redacted] had been up to in Europe, which forced them to shut down their presence in the American embassy in Oslo and withdraw Mr. Breivik’s handlers. The Butcher of Utøya was then let off his leash, and the rest is history.

Whether mass slaughter was intended or not, the plan was a great success. The Counterjihad was hobbled, the spread of sharia proceeded apace, and the Obama administration became a servant of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Biden administration is, in effect, Obama’s third term.

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

Before I close these remarks, I’d like to address an appalling issue that has emerged surrounding the mass murder committed by Anders Behring Breivik. When it first came up it was very distressing, but I’ve had ten years to get used to it. Now it’s just something that I have to endure whenever the topic is broached on this site.

In those early days I was shocked by the number of people who supported Mr. Breivik and considered him a hero for what he did. And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and Aryan supremacists, but more mainstream people who oppose mass immigration and hate socialism. Every time I post something about the Butcher of Utøya they pop up again and express their admiration for him.

I’m not going to tolerate such comments, and will delete them when they appear. You might as well spare yourself the effort. If you want, you can visit Storm Front and similar sites and make your remarks there, where you’ll get a sympathetic reception and find a lot of people who agree with you.

I’m familiar with the arguments that people make to justify their opinion: Mr. Breivik was targeting future socialists, who would otherwise have grown up and entered politics and invited even more of the Third World into Norway. But that’s a specious line of reasoning, in my opinion. The mass slaughter only hardened public opinion against those who oppose mass immigration, and made it even more difficult to restrain such immigration. Killing all those kids inspired no sympathy for the Aryan cause; it had the opposite effect.

But that’s just the practical, utilitarian argument against it.

Mr. Breivik’s strategy was a recapitulation of one of the major trends of the 20th century: the mass extermination of entire classes of people. For him it was Young Socialists. For Hitler it was Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and the feeble-minded. For Stalin it was counter-revolutionaries, “wreckers”, the bourgeoisie, kulaks, and Ukrainians. For Pol Pot it was the intellectuals. For the Hutus it was the Tutsis. For Muslims it was Jews, Christians, Hindus, and other infidels.

What all the architects of those atrocities have in common is that they considered it morally justifiable, and even laudable, to engage in the mass slaughter of people based on their membership in a particular class — a race, a social class, an occupation, a nationality, etc. Individuals meant nothing. Those who engineered the massacres were not required to determine whether their victims were guilty of any crimes, or even subscribed to a particular ideology. They were members of a class, and for that reason they deserved to die. Men, women, children, invalids, the elderly and enfeebled — all had to go.

That is a pernicious mindset, and I’ll have none of it. It was the bane of the 20th century, and we’ve no business extending it into the 21st.

I know the counter-arguments — we’re in a war, and war sometimes requires us to do horrible things, etc., etc. If we want to win, we have to grit our teeth and do what is necessary.

Well, if that’s what it takes to win, then I don’t want to win. I’ll go down to defeat rather than jump into that particular boxcar to hell.

Kurt Westergaard R.I.P.

Many thanks to LN for translating this article from the Swedish alternative news site Samhällsnytt:

Muhammad cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has died

by Almgren

The well-known Danish artist Kurt Westergaard has died at the age of 86. Westergaard became widely known when his illustration of the Muslim prophet Muhammad was published in Jyllands-Posten in 2005.

As a cartoonist at Jyllands-Posten, Kurt Westergaard became the embodiment of freedom of expression in Denmark, Berlingske writes in a obituary of the artist. His cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad created one of Denmark’s biggest foreign policy crises ever, Ekstra Bladet recalls.

Westergaard has described himself as “a culturally radical half-hippie who advocates peace, space for all and good coexistence.”

In addition to creating a foreign policy crisis, Westergaard’s drawing made him an object of hatred for Muslims around the world. According to information, a price of several million kronor was put on his head, the newspaper writes. He was soon forced to live under the constant protection of PET, the Danish security and intelligence service.

Attacked in his home

On January 1, 2010, a man with a Somali background broke into Westergaard’s home and attacked him with an ax and a knife. Westergaard escaped by locking himself in his bathroom, which the authorities refitted as a security room.

Police were quickly on the scene and shot the attacker in one leg and arm, after he also attacked them with his weapons. The man was sentenced to ten years in prison and then deported for life. Following the assassination attempt, Westergaard’s PET bodyguard protection was further expanded.

A couple of years later, a 29-year-old man was also arrested. This after making a bomb threat against Westergaard.

Westergaard was born in Døstrup in North Jutland. Before he started as a cartoonist at Jyllands-Posten in 1983, he had worked for several years as a teacher of German and a school inspector. At Jyllands-Posten, Westergaard continued to work as a subscriber until his retirement in 2010.

“I want to be remembered as someone who fought for freedom of speech. But there is no doubt that there are those who instead remember me as a Satan who insulted the religion of a billion people.”

Westergaard fell asleep in silence after a long illness. He leaves behind a wife, five children, ten grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Germany is Looking at the Chinese Model

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Tichys Einblick:

Effective in Climate Protection

Ministry of Education is considering social point system based on the Chinese model for Germany

In a study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Education, one of six future scenarios is the introduction of a social point system based on the Chinese model. Jobs and study places then depend on social commitment and a small ecological footprint.

Orientation for the “world of tomorrow” is what the Federal Ministry of Education wants to offer with the “Foresight” (Vorausschau) campaign. For this purpose, six future scenarios have been devised in a commissioned “value study”, which researchers will discuss there. In addition to the “European Way” and “Ecological Regionalization”, there is also the “The Bonus System” scenario. The point is that every person receives an individual social score, which should play a decisive role in the allocation of jobs or university places, for example. It is a social point system, as it is currently being tested in China. However, this scenario does not serve as a dark dystopia — neutral, almost positive, the effects are shown and weighed up.

The paper by the Federal Ministry of Education states: “For certain behavior, points can be collected in the point system operated by the state (e.g. volunteering, caring for relatives, organ donations, provision for old age, traffic behavior, carbon footprint). In addition to social recognition, collecting points also has advantages in everyday life (e.g. shorter waiting times for certain courses).”

The approval of the law among the population would increase through “the dynamics of climate change”. The system is in fact successful in this area: “This generated pressure to act to counteract, whereby a points system turned out to be an efficient control mechanism for dealing with the consequences of climate change (e.g. by scoring the ecological footprint). The ‘polluter pays’ principle was made transparent through the point system. In addition, given the good economic situation, the point system proved to be a suitable instrument for the labor market, which is characterized by a shortage of skilled workers and workers,” it says.

In the year 2030, the social point system will then only be fundamentally questioned by a minority: “The point system will meet with approval from a majority of the population in the 2030s, as many feel that it has a binding orientation function for a more complex and differentiated society occupied by different social groups. At the same time, in Germany in the 2030s, the point system as a forecasting and control tool was gradually anchoring new norms in everyday life.” The social point system would obviously also be profitable for democracy. The state sets incentives “for activity in civil society or political organizations, as this is conducive to pluralistic discourse and is seen as the basis of the social evaluation system. Only those who are active here are able to get involved in social decision-making.”

Continue reading