Posted under Political Correctness
First of all, what happened in Norway is horrible. My sympathy goes out to the families of the victims.
Second, I’d like to address the media’s sloppy reporting of this unfortunate incident.
- Apparently, Anders Behring Breivik didn’t just randomly target Norwegian children on an island, as was first reported by the American media, but deliberately targeted the youth camp on Utoya island. These teenagers and 20-somethings were the elite of Norway’s ruling left-wing party, whereby Breivik attempted to “wipe out” the next generation of Labor politicians, whom he blamed for mass immigration into Norway.
- It seems that the NY Times and others are attacking the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, who writes in English and is extremely popular throughout Europe. It seems that Breivik quotes Fjordman extensively in his manifesto, although Fjordman has never advocated violence. Fjordman is quite saddened by the recent incident, but says that bloggers should remain committed to the truth. He writes:
We cannot stop writing about charged but important issues. People like me have been warning against rising ethnic tensions for years, not creating them. They have been created by runaway mass immigration to Western countries, and as long as that runaway immigration continues, I fear that these tensions are going to continue to rise as well. I do not wish this; I am merely warning that this is likely to happen.
Fjordman is by far one of the best European bloggers writing in English today. I’d recommend that anyone spend a couple hours and peruse his articles listed here.
- Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post is more accurately reporting on Breivik than is the American press. While the American press is still innaccurately reporting that Breivik is a “neo-nazi,” the JP accurately reports that Breivik was a Zionist, as a quick perusal of his manifesto will show. Peter Brimelow notes that Breivik is probably more like a Baruch Goldstein than a Timothy McVeigh.
- Speaking of biased reporting by the media, if you haven’t noticed, certain American reporters seem to be completely obsessed with Breivik’s “fair skin,” “blond hair,” and “blue eyes.” If the shooter were from a Muslim country, would the media obsess about his “swarthy complexion” and “dark eyes”? Of course not, as it would fall under the “not reporting race” category.
- Of course, the worst is probably yet to come. The anti-Western media will milk this for all it’s worth. They will attempt to dupe people that Islam and Third World immigration are not a real threat in Europe. I wouldn’t be surprised if they use this as a pretext to attempt to flood the West with even more of the Third World. But it may be an uphill battle. If you look at the comments below Breivik’s video at YouTube, probably about half of the comments (mostly by Europeans), while expressing shock and anger at what Breivik did, are critical of Third World immigration into Europe.
Updates:
Apparently Breivik in his manifesto in addition to Fjordman also quotes Lawrence Auster, Bruce Bawer, the English Defense League, Robert Spencer, Srdja Trifkovic, and Geert Wilders, all of whom have never advocated violence. Quite the opposite. Breivik also quotes Shakespeare and John Stuart Mill. James Fulford notes that Breivik quotes Baron Bodissey, Pamela Geller and the New York Times.
Pat Buchanan on Breivik and how the press will us it to attempt to silence the right.
RedPhillips on 25 Jul 2011 at 5:01 pm #
First of all, with all the new attention how long do you think Fjordman will be able to remain anonymous?
Also, the writings and thought of Breivik seem oddly Americanized in a way. Like he got much of his thought from English language sites.
Brock Townsend on 25 Jul 2011 at 6:23 pm #
deliberately targeted the youth camp on Utoya island. These teenagers and 20-somethings were the elite of Norway’s ruling left-wing party, whereby Breivik attempted to “wipe out” the next generation of Labor politicians, whom he blamed for mass immigration.
I thought something similar as soon as it was identified as a socialist camp. Posted.
RonL on 25 Jul 2011 at 11:10 pm #
What is with Steven Sailer and Kevin MacDonald? What is their need to blame Zionism or neoconservatives? (Stupid, question, I know MacDonald’s pathology.) But it is just silly.
Nothing says neoconservative more than expelling immigrants, even if they are Muslim. That neoconservatives cannot even agree that a World Trade Center Mosque should be stopped suggest that Sailer and MacDonald are either delusional or yelling “Jew/Zionist/Neocon” out of reflex, just as people were yelling Nazi before.
As for ABB’s Zionism, let’s put it in perspective. He opposed acting against Iran because he sees Iran as a counterbalance to the Sunni World. That Iran’s nuclear program threaten’s Israel and many Western Nations doesn’t enter his twisted thoughts. Similarly, Beivek seemed to welcome the Islamist revolution, which he saw folling the expulsion of European Muslims. He believed that it would be a permanent open threat to keep Europe from being liberal. That this would threaten the existence of Israel is unmentioned. ABB certainly is a Zionist, but it is by no means an important issue for him.
RedPhillips on 25 Jul 2011 at 11:59 pm #
Ron, to me ABB seems like a recognizable type. He is primarily anti-Muslim and anti-Muslim immigration, but friendly to Jews and Israel because he wants to distance himself and his movement from past unsavory associations and people, sees Jews as having a common enemy in Muslims, and likely respects Jewish cohesiveness. They often also see homosexuals as allies because they are opposed to Muslim religious illiberalism.
Just as there is a recognizable type that is friendly to Muslims because they see them as allies against Jews.
So I don’t think his pro-Israel views are defining. They more help in classifying his type of nationalism.
Sempronius on 26 Jul 2011 at 12:23 am #
“Nothing says neoconservative more than expelling immigrants, even if they are Muslim.”
Full-bore delusion on display here folks.
“That Iran’s nuclear program threaten’s Israel and many Western Nations doesn’t enter his twisted thoughts.”
Repeating a lie, no matter how frequently, doesn’t magically turn it into truth.
“Stupid, question, I know MacDonald’s pathology.”
It would be more correct to say the your pathology fails (or pretends to fail) to see the truth and labels as pathological those who do.
P.S. When are you going to call for Danny Danon’s resignation? Hmmm?
Bede on 26 Jul 2011 at 1:57 am #
In the manifesto, Breivik opposes all forms of immigration. Also in the manifesto he says that he said more liberal things on bulletin boards (attacking nationalist parties?) so as not to draw attention to himself. He claims he was leading a double-life. So it’s really hard to know what to believe. It’s hard to know who is the real Breivik. I suspect he might be a type of narcissist.
RonL on 26 Jul 2011 at 6:09 am #
Sempronius,
Neoconservatives like immigration. Name one actual neoconservative who wants to force Muslims to leave the west.
“Repeating a lie, no matter how frequently, doesn’t magically turn it into truth.”
And ignoring facts, no matter how inconvenient, does not make them less so. Iran could have had a civilian nuclear program with foreign aid. Instead they are refining Uranium past the point needed for nuclear power, but on to the point of weaponized fission. They are developing IRBMs. QED.
“It would be more correct to say the your pathology fails (or pretends to fail) to see the truth and labels as pathological those who do.”
Get back to me when K-mac notices that his theory is wrong. Relatively programs that inherently lead to death are not a group survival strategy. All the less so when they are manifest in virtually all aggrieved groups, regardless of power.
“P.S. When are you going to call for Danny Danon’s resignation? Hmmm?”
I’m not Israeli, so I have no more standing to do so than you.
Sempronius on 27 Jul 2011 at 12:28 am #
“And ignoring facts, no matter how inconvenient, does not make them less so. Iran could have had a civilian nuclear program with foreign aid. Instead they are refining Uranium past the point needed for nuclear power, but on to the point of weaponized fission. They are developing IRBMs. QED.”
And Sadam Husein was behind 9/11 and had WMDs. QED, indeed.
“Get back to me when K-mac notices that his theory is wrong. Relatively programs that inherently lead to death are not a group survival strategy. All the less so when they are manifest in virtually all aggrieved groups, regardless of power.”
Say again, huh?
“I’m not Israeli, so I have no more standing to do so than you.”
How about a boycott then? What about a withdrawl of “aid” (i.e. tribute)?
RonL on 29 Jul 2011 at 8:23 am #
“And Sadam Husein was behind 9/11 and had WMDs. QED, indeed.”
What? No one claims that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. There were real ties between his government and Al Qaeda, but those were much more related to the Philippians Airline Plot.
And he did have nuclear and biological wepons (not just programs, but warheads). We found an active nuclear weapons program, but not as big as many suspected. Of course all those nice trucks going to Ba’athist Syria before we began the war…
“Say again, huh?”
Kevin MacDonald’s central thesis about a Jewish survival strategy is illogical ahistorical garbage.
“How about a boycott then? What about a withdrawl of “aid” (i.e. tribute)?”
Boycott a country because of a member of the government, but not official policy? No.
Withdrawing foreign and military aid from the entire region is long overdue.