Discussing Breivik on The Friday Show
I'll join Mike Conner and Matt Parrot on the Friday Show, live tonight at Voice of Reason, Friday, April 27th at 9PM ET.In today's Breivik headlines, Anders Breivik: Unraveling Violent Crimes and Mental Illness, at ABC News:
“When people struggle to comprehend what lies behind the mass murder of adolescents gathered for a weekend of discussions and campfires, the simplest response is that the killer ‘must be mad,’” Dr. Simon Wessely, head of psychological medicine at King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, wrote in the commentary published Thursday in The Lancet. “The inexplicable can only be explained as an act of insanity, which by definition cannot be rationally explained. The act was so monstrous, the consequences so grievous, that the perpetrator had to be insane.”We can say the same for those who favor genocidal immigration and integration policies in spite of the monstrous, grievous consequences - all together far more destructive and widespread than what Breivik has taken responsibility for. The perpetrators of these genocidal policies should be on trial, compelled to explain their insanity.
UPDATE 12 May 2012: The Friday Show: Tanstaafl on Breivik (mp3)
Labels: anders behring breivik, interview, matt parrot, mike conner, podcast, vor
posted by Tanstaafl at 4/27/2012 03:20:00 PM
86 Comments:
The media are avoiding the word "war." In Breivik's view, Norway is being invaded and conquered in an undeclared war. In his mind, his attacks were acts of war, like the slaughter of innocents in the firebombings of Dresden or Hiroshima.
It's very simple, and you'll never hear it explained in the media. Too dangerous.
Nelson Mandela must be "insane" too.
http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/2007/12/church-street-bombing.html
(...)
However the fact of the matter is that the Church Street Bombing did occur - Mandela did consent to it - (he mentions this in his book). I was living in Pretoria at the time and my father's office was a few blocks from the site of the bombing. I remember this event very clearly. Church Street is the Yonge Street of Pretoria - the bomb went off at rush hour on a Friday afternoon to ensure maximum civilian casualties. The carnage was awful. There were many people (both black and white) who were cut to shreds by the falling glass from the surrounding buildings. Regardless of how one wishes to justify this act, it was terrible atrocity and probably didn't do much to advance the anti-apartheid struggle.
(...)
I wish Tans would block the comments from the enemy side. If we wanted to hear their views, all we have to do is go on any mainstream site.
Great interview!
That's a very good point about Mandela approving bombings. Menachem Begin bombed British offices in Palestine.
However, Blacks and Jews are recognized ethnic groups. European ethnic groups are not recognized as valid ethnic groups.
From 1948 to late 1970s Israeli politics was controlled by a Marxist/left-wing coalition.
Menachem Begin was the first Prime-minister of Israel from the Likud party (Trotskyists turned conservatives). Could be said that he is the father of Neoconservatism...
There is an interesting comment by possibly a Norwegian man on the site of your pal Herr Auster!
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/022258.html
Check out
Voice of Reason is down. Is anyone else having problems accessing the site?
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/30/raising-breivik/#comment-101687
Same problem here with Voice of Reason. It's been down for at least 12 hours.
http://times247.com/articles/breitbart-s-coroner-dead-from-suspected-poisoning
---weird....
and Voice of Reason is down for me too :(
Hi Tanstaafl,
under the Africa section could you remove the African crises and SA sucks links, both sites had the plug pulled on them, by the highly tolerant Liberals of the free press of SA.
One author has setup his own site, if you could link it. The section titled "Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box - by Mike Smith" is a gem. Thank you.
http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.de/
I would just like to remind that May is jewish american heritage month for those whose celebrations are still in the planning stage.
Is there an MP3 of this show?
May I remind everyone on here that while one could agree with Breivik on certain ideological matters, his decision to kill a bunch people was completely ridiculous? The situation in Western Europe in terms of immigrant may be insane, as some have pointed out, but Breivik's actions were insane as well. If we do not work towards converting the populations to Conservatism by creating successful intellectual foundations for ourselves, we will never get anywhere. Doing outrageous illegal things like going on a shooting rampage killing Liberal teens is obviously going to make Conservatism look about as attractive as Stalin.
It is unfortunate that it took something like Breivik's action to wake up European whites. His government's policy of welcoming third world immigration caused Breivik to become radicalized, therefore the massacre was primarily his government's fault. His government is guilty of destroying his country.
@Anonymous 2:49 pm - you make the same argument as DerkSHOWitz:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/07/29/norway-innocent-israel-guilty-norwegian-ambassdor/
Breivik is a false flag operative as were the Weathermen. Look at where Bill Ayers is today.
https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/bill-ayers-and-bernadine-dohrn-calling-for-resistance/
The last "Friday Show" archived at VOR is dated Friday April 20th. That's three Fridays ago. Maybe. like Carolyn Yeager, you should archive podcasts you participate in here so we can listen when we miss the live feed.
This is a rhetorical question, of course, but how is it that a committed WN like Anders Brevik can execute 70 innocent Norwegians in 2 hours while party pictures of the same smiling oligarchs who head American banking and media monopolies continue appearing in Vanity Fair every month?
Echoing WDW, it's annoying that your Friday Show chat isn't available yet for download. And, as WDW says, maybe you can get a copy and post it here for download.
Weber's Jewish holocaust show recently is worth a listen, especially as it relates to what someone here recently said about Weber affirming "the Holocaust". In it he discusses all the lies and distortions that have been deliberately foisted upon the public. Weber discusses how "the Holocaust" has become a form of religion used to batter down all criticism of Jews, whether in Israel or deeply involved in U.S.A. government policy.
Weber also briefly discusses what is true of "the Holocaust". Personally, I would like him to dedicate another show just to that topic alone, to clear the air on the subject and set a few things straight.
The problem for us with "the Holocaust" is that it is called exactly that - The Holocaust. The catastrophe that struck the Jews in Europe is given this title, and subsequent worship, as being the pinnacle and apex of all suffering for mankind, in the form only of "the Jews".
The purpose for mine, and others, in discussing "the Holocaust" is to contextualise our history, not to deny that any harm at all came the Jews way.
Of course the Jews suffered, yet their suffering, even attempted ethnic cleansing in some areas, was on a par with, and in most cases less than, the suffering and attempted genocide of Europeans. Under Soviet Russia, and under post WWII Allied policy, as well as leading up to the end of the war. As Carolyn Jaegar's readings attest, the war itself was a holocaust of Whites, it was a White civil war that was started, and played out for causes never in White interests.
Poland is the central point about the morality of the war. What was given by the Allies as their cause for war, was thrown to a genocidalist Soviet Union, putting the lie to any claims to morality from our war time leaders.
Today "the Holocaust" is not merely a meme, it is a focal point of Judeo-American propaganda of such massive proportions that it is an article of faith, protected by law, throughout White nations.
That is one of the reasons why we need to discuss, and revise, our own history with specific attention to "the Holocaust".
Addendum by way of WDW comment, "how is it that a committed WN like Anders Brevik can...". I wouldn't call Breivik "a committed WN".
He is, as he says he is, a Knight Templar, with a dedication to his ethnicity, his nation, formerly White Norway. He also has an allegiance with a Christianity of sorts, one that he sees as fundamental to what it means to be European.
But, as noted, much of his worldview was developed from Gates of Vienna, specifically Fjordman. That site and its cohort "anti-Jihadists" are not strictly White Nationalists.
To be a WN, for mine, is to know your people (your family) first, i.e. your ethnicity. Arising from that is a broader commitment to racial solidarity with all White people and their nations.
Should any form of Christianity preclude ethnic and or racial solidarity then it is not WN, and is actually not Christian.
Discussing the Jews within this context then is to know and understand that they are not us, first and foremost. They are Jews and we are whatever our ethnicity is, with our broader racial - White - solidarity.
Jews have their interests, we have ours. The question must start there and always be defined their - to know us to know them. To them, is to define what we need to do for our people, without any consideration of their interests. Diplomatically and pragmatically though, one must have consideration of others interests, so as to better advance one's own.
At this point Breivik falls down. He often cites "Holocaust" type sympathies and ethnic guilt tripping. He may pragmatically seek alliance with Israeli nationalists, but he falsely identifies our interests, conflates our interests, with Jewish interests.
On another subject similar, recently at OO, all Whites need to have a fundamental understanding of our primary goal - our preservation. WNism, is an umbrella terms for our ethnic allegiances. Too many stupid arguments ensue when other factors are discussed without this principle underpinning. Like Christian universalism, or paganaism, or whatever pet project some otherwise WN has up his sleeve.
WNism is not an intellectual venture. It is a requirement for survival. Of course there are intellctual subjects to be fleshed out and discussed so as to better formulate our political platforms. But too often Whites get divided over intellectualising about the perfect White utopia rather than focusing on what is required, right here right now - us.
Sorry for going on at length, I don't mean to take over this thread.
Re-wording one paragraph:
"Jews have their interests, we have ours. The question must start there and always be defined there - to know *us* is to know *them*. To know them, is to define what we need to do for our people, without any consideration of their, i.e.other's, interests.
Diplomatically and pragmatically though, one must have consideration for others' interests, so as to better advance one's own."
Re, universalism: it occurs to me that Christian universalism was always of the type that recognised individual tribal autonomy but brought these tribes, these ethnicities under the one broad coalition of Christendom. This universalism was always underpinned by ethnic solidarity, expressed religiously.
Andrew Fraser discusses the English people and nation at length with regard this subject in his WASP Question book.
We Whites need take a similar approach. Christian universalism today does not express ethnic or racial solidarity, in contrast to its Church fathers' teachings.
But we today, whether Americans of whatever White ethnicity, Europeans, other Commonwealth nations etc need first recall our ethnic family, serve it, and seek a wider coalition of all White ethnicities. That to me is the goal and definition of WNism.
Our religion or lack of in the case of atheism, should not be a barrier to this requirement. People talk of the 14 words and that is our primary point of coalescence, regardless of whatever religious or philosophical differences we may have.
Ok, I'll shut up now.
Pat - you dont need to shut up, that was great.
Lurker
No apologies needed Pat. You are concise and on the mark.
Pat Hannagan said...
Today "the Holocaust" is not merely a meme, it is a focal point of Judeo-American propaganda of such massive proportions that it is an article of faith, protected by law, throughout White nations. That is one of the reasons why we need to discuss, and revise, our own history with specific attention to "the Holocaust".
5/08/2012 05:56:00 PM
---------------
First off, thanks Pat for your three interesting comments. They've caused me to respond.
I fully agree that we need to thrash out the truth about the holocaust/hoax. It has become the number one means of jewish thought control over Whites' minds. Every time our 'jewish masters' raise the holohoax stick, Whites cringe in groveling brainwashed guilt, like beaten Pavlovian dogs.
Now, a couple of long points.
1) Let's assume that the holocaust happened as typically described. And let's assume that the jews were just scapegoats, basically innocent. Now killing six million is a terrible crime, indeed. But, is it the crime of all times? Is it a crime so momentous in human history that we should all worship its victims? Should we pass laws banning any critical discussion of it? Should we sacrifice Western civilization for it? Should Whites agree to their collective death through third world invasion?
F**k no! But it seems that it is exactly what we have done!
Far worse crimes have happened in modern times. Look at the tens of millions murdered by the jew run Soviet Union. What about Mao, and so on. What about the other 55 million or so dead in that war?
Apparently about half of the jews were killed by being tricked into taking a 'shower'. A few minutes of suffering. Compare that of a similar number or more of German men, mostly quite young, who spent from a few days to a few years facing the constant terror and experience of mutilation and death in combat against the jewish created Soviet army in the Eastern Front, until they were finally killed.
In other words, relatively speaking, big f**king deal! Jewish suffering is not unique, it's run of the mill. Maybe, in fact, the jews run the mill?
Then we get to the scamming that the jews have carried out to suck out untold billions from Germans and others. Read Finkelstein's book 'The Holocaust Industry'. Written by a jew, no less, ashamed and disgusted about how fellow jews have suckered, and blackmailed Whites over this 'crime'.
Zionist "Brave-ik" - son of a Norway diplomat to England, a Zionist, and someone connected to the "counter Jihad" modern version of the "stay behind" teams of Operation Gladio - is not unlike a Timothy McVeigh.
Who benefits? Who gains? Not us.
Notice that Occidental Observer's blog was spammed heavily by "counter jihadists" praising "Brave-ik" for murdering all those pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist activists.
Who benefits? Not us.
This is not complicated, people.
Well, yeah, it is a little more complicated than that.
Brave-Ik's actions have had repercussions here in Oz one our own leftist elite. And they haven't tied it into Israel.
On that score I am thoroughly sympathetic to what Brave-Ik did.
Yet, I see that there may well have been an Israeli/Jewish motivation there, just like our left in Oz has been shutdown on the BDS score.
So, Breivik is complicated. We don't have all the facts. But the 14 words remain primary for us.
Listen to this: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/cheap-shots-after-breivik-massacre-are-sick-says-paul-howes/story-e6frezz0-1226341529508
I was watching a harrowing report of the massacre on Four Corners a few nights ago, and, in a moment of profound sadness for the dreadful loss of young lives, some not much older than my eldest son, I tweeted that "thinking back to Young Labor camps my wife, friends & I used to go to and how easily something like this could happen here".
The truth is that it's something political parties - of all persuasions - are going to have to think about.
Keeping our young activists safe is an extremely important consideration, now that one maniac has had the idea and carried it out.
Young activists are the generational scum of our traitorous elites. They deserve exactly what they imposed on us.
You don't know, just like Paul Howes doesn't know, nor care, what evil he inflicted upon me and mine. Labor threw my family to their Islamic dogs, now it is time for them to feel the pain.
So, on that score, fuck you Howes and co. Here's some slight return. More to come.
It 's only the Jewish Question that I'm doubtful about.
It 's only the Jewish Question that I'm doubtful about.
By that I mean, what involvement was there for the Jews in this.
Notice that Occidental Observer's blog was spammed heavily by "counter jihadists" praising "Brave-ik" for murdering all those pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist activists.
Can anyone imagine jews cheering for the deaths of 77 of their own who were attacking Whites, because they weren't "pro-jew" enough? "I don't care how much damage they were doing to Whites... they're not pro-jew!"
It's really too bad that jews aren't anywhere near as stupid or bereft of strategic thinking ability as the average WN - they would be utterly harmless to us.
A while ago I got into a short discussion with Greg Johnson at Counter Currents site, over this. His point was that we don't need to deal with the holocaust, that is, leave it alone. Strange to me.
Well he has no problem speaking in front of the IHR - but then, the IHR under Mark Weber is effectively no longer a Holocaust revisionist organization, so I guess it makes sense that he would want to support them now.
Pat don't be naive. Norway wasn't going along with the Western world's resource grab through the international financial system or the genocide of the Palestinians so Brevik was the shot fired over their bow. The immigration issue is just the Trojan Horse. The Hegelian dialectic in motion.
Re Pat Hannagan on 5-8 @ 5:56
You will not find Mark Weber advising that "Holocaust" is the wrong word for it (though it definitely is). He might be attacked by the Jews. MW states that he believes in the Holocaust, but he is now warming up to revisionism again (after claiming a couple of years ago it was no longer relevant) because he sees that it draws listeners, readers and -- most important -- donors to him. But it is Revisionism Light.
Pat wrote: "Weber also briefly discusses what is true of "the Holocaust".
Carolyn: There is nothing true of "the Holocaust." The problem here is what Weber accepts, not what he rejects.
Pat wrote: "Personally, I would like him to dedicate another show just to that topic alone, to clear the air on the subject and set a few things straight."
Carolyn: My God, please don't go there to "set yourself straight." Mark Weber wrings his hands over Jewish suffering. You are being fooled by his calm, scholarly approach.
Mark Weber is mostly a crass opportunist who left revisionism, as I said, and took off following David Irving awhile back, linking his star to Irving's. That hasn't panned out so well, so now he's back mouthing again about "holocaust and Hitler' trying to get back all those people he turned off. It's true that "Hitler Sells," and that is the only reason Weber does anything. He is Jew-friendly, always was (his sister is a Jew living in Israel, did you know that?).
Weber is a weak person whose main goal in life is to live without having to work -- to be able to spend as much time on the phone and reading newspapers as possible. But he's smart and is good at organizing material into speeches and articles. Not that he writes articles anymore.
In the VoR broadcast you mention, go back to it and note all the things Weber *doesn't* say, like any of the real sticking points in contention. He stay with the "Holocaust Industry" and "Holocaust has become a religion." That is safe. No revisionist respects Mark Weber any longer, not for a long time, so maybe you should find another source of information.
Yay Carolyn !!!
I love your show and appreciate all the work that you have done. Good on you.
Brevik's actions harmed the nationalist and pro-White cause, and was good for Israel and globalism.
The Islamification of Norway and Europe has not stopped and Brevik's actions did nothing to stop it.
What Brevik's actions did do, however, was prevent Norway from supporting a Palestinian state at the UN and put the fear of YHWH into anyone opposing Zionist imperialism. Which is exactly what it was intended to do. The manifesto is explicit in its anti-racism.
It's simply the EDL strategy - Europe for everyone of all races, except no Muslims since they are anti-semitic. EDL was started by an anti-English, anti-European Zionist Jew.
"WNs" are playing checkers while our opponents are playing chess.
I wonder what Carolyn's very sober, fair and wise assessments of Jurgen Graf and Germar Rudolf are.
To those who have expressed concern about Tan's 1 hour guest appearance on VoR's The Friday Show still not being available:
It is indeed shocking and inexcusable. The posted programs at VoR are still only from April--the person in charge hasn't even reached May yet. I won't say what I know about it, so as not to sound like I am gossiping, but it has been a chronic problem.
People who are out of patience with it need to write to mike.conner@reasonradionetwork.com.Let him know how much it bothers you. It's not just Tan's show, it's all the shows.
Carolyn, thanks for that information. I was wondering where the negative sentiment that I had picked up on re Weber came from.
There is a hell of a lot I don't know about various personalities, but I primarily judge them by their output. Weber's broadcasts have impressed me, as have yours, and I simply wish to spread these sources far and wide to as many other White people as possible.
Weber presents very well, is articulate, well sourced in his topics, and imparts that knowledge to his listener. I cannot fault him in that regard.
I am very much interested in other sources of information re the Jewish holocaust, anything you can give me in that regard is very much appreciated.
As Helvena said, I too love your show and appreciate your work. Matter of fact, I am about to listen to part 2 of your recent show re "The Holocaust". Keep up the great work and, sincerely, thank you.
Fritz Berg just left this comment at Codoh Forum. I thought you all might find it interesting.
___________________________
An important reason to DEBATE Mark Weber and David Irving is to finally get some clarity from each of them as to where they stand as far as the great hoax is concerned. What do they really believe--and why? Both of them, but especially Mark Weber, have lived off the revisionist community for years. They have both conned people into believing they were "holocaust deniers" while also undermining revisionists whenever it suited them. They have both been talking out of many sides of their mouths. It is high time that they really defend themselves and stand up for whatever they really believe.
Weber should resign from the IHR and turn over his position to someone who really does support holocaust revisionism. Germar Rudolf seems like an excellent choice as the next director of the IHR--but there are others as well. We could then have a revisonist journal again and so much more.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Mark Weber has overseen a multi-decade "do nothing" phase at IHR. On purpose? His weekly radio program is nothing compared to what needs to be and could be done. Don't fall for his excuses.
Fritz is right, Germar Rudolf would be fantastic as director of IHR. Then you would see things happening! But Weber will never resign (and he controls the Board which keeps him in place) ... unless he were handsomely paid off, but there's no money for that.
Is there anyone here who knows for sure that Mark Weber isn't Jewish himself? I remember having seen a video on Youtube of his at a younger age where he definitely looked Jewish. Besides, isn't "Weber" a well known German Jewish name?
The other day I read on the internet that he has a sister living in Israel. Maybe he is a Jewish infiltrator especially send to wreck the IHR from the inside? That would explain his curious behaviour, such as stating that the holocaust "really happened" or that revisionism isn't really relevant anymore or by producing very little.
P.S. that video on Youtube where Mark Weber looks definitely Jewish is : Holocaust debate Mark Weber vs. Michael Shermer, (part one).
I advise everyone to read Stieg Larsson's triology starting with"The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo " if you want some insight into the modern Scandinavian mind. I read it with fascinated horror.
The prose is absolutely awful but as a demonstration of a mind that has been completely brainwashed by cultural marxism it is incomparable. And these books were international bestsellers. I also read Jo Nesbo and I had the same reaction.
Seventy years of comfortable socialism has had dire results.In my opinion the Scandinavians are mentally the least prepared to cope with the coming disasters.
I emailed Mike Conner and told him that although I love reason radio, I am wondering why the backlog is so bad?
Thanks Carolyn :)
Anonymous said...
5/10/2012 02:33:00 PM
> Brevik's actions harmed the nationalist and pro-White cause, and was good for Israel and globalism.
His extreme action has brought the pro-White cause to Whites attention. He has made a statement (in blood) that our situation is dire. A wake-up call. Does this harm Whites?
This gets to the issue of whether a tiny few should be sacrificed to save the many. Should we prevent a war by killing a few or should we wait until a war erupts and kills the many?
For practical reasons he couldn't kill the all the bus drivers who are driving us off the cliff, so he settled for the future bus drivers who are intent of driving Whites off the cliff into final oblivion.
As for being good for Israel and globalism, I don't see that as being his intent (see below).
>The Islamification of Norway and Europe has not stopped and Brevik's actions did nothing to stop it.
You are not going to turn a potential Titanic (the West) on a dime. It takes time and an awakening of minds as Whites slowly recognize that they are deliberate targets of slow motion genocide through population replacement and criminality in their lives.
>What Brevik's actions did do, however, was prevent Norway from supporting a Palestinian state at the UN and put the fear of YHWH into anyone opposing Zionist imperialism. Which is exactly what it was intended to do.
I don't see that. I think his support of Zionism was just simply one of PC ignorance. He was enraged about Norway being raped and destroyed by the Multicultis.
>The manifesto is explicit in its anti-racism.
Again, I think he was a victim of PC multicultism himself. He hadn't yet escaped the orbit of PC bullshit. He had got a few orbits out, but was still under the the spell of it. At the level of accepting jewish propaganda. It is an onion of lies after all.
In summary, I think Brievik simply wasn't jew-wise. From that, all his other PC views follow.
> It's simply the EDL strategy - Europe for everyone of all races, except no Muslims since they are anti-semitic. EDL was started by an anti-English, anti-European Zionist Jew.
I don't really know about the EDL, so I can't comment.
>"WNs" are playing checkers while our opponents are playing chess.
Yes, to some degree.
Perhaps we can invent a new game where we can have the overwhelming advantage. Like waking up?
By the way, my most recent Heretics' Hour program, "Interview with Germar Rudolf," can be downloaded here: http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-interview-former-prisoner-conscience-germar-rudolf
All my HH programs can be listened to and downloaded at http://carolynyeager.net/vor. I used to post them here *after* they were posted on VoR ... now I post them first and VoR follows later.
katana,
I made my statements based on the manifesto.
"His extreme action has brought the pro-White cause to Whites attention"
His manifesto is clear that he is not "pro-white" but rather, pro-Zionist (cultural) Christian, and he supports a united Europe, among other things, invading Turkey and Arab nations to support Israel. He even suggests invading Egypt to support the non-European Christians there. He suggests blowing up the mosque in Jerusalem and building a "half Jewish half Christian" temple. How is that "pro-White" or even pro-European?
"As for being good for Israel and globalism, I don't see that as being his intent (see below)."
I would suggest reading the manifesto where the intentions of the terrorist attack are spelled out. He mentions Israel probably more often than he does Norway.
"I don't see that. I think his support of Zionism was just simply one of PC ignorance."
Again, reading the manifesto will show why that is unlikely.
"He hadn't yet escaped the orbit of PC bullshit. He had got a few orbits out, but was still under the the spell of it. At the level of accepting jewish propaganda."
Much of the manifesto was word-for-word copy and paste from Jewish neo-conservatives. The manifesto was explicit in denouncing racism, anti-semitism, and uniting non-Europeans and non-European nations in a Zionist, pro-Israel "Christendom."
"I think Brievik simply wasn't jew-wise. From that, all his other PC views follow. "
The manifesto shows a thorough knowledge of the Jewish cultural Marxist movement, and how it has damaged Europe, all the while shifting the blame away from Jews and Zionists who created and led the movement. It is very, very cleat the author of the manifesto was not simply unaware of the Jewish role, but was active in shifting the blame away from the perps.
"Perhaps we can invent a new game where we can have the overwhelming advantage. Like waking up?"
One way to do that is by critically examining the evidence at hand, such as the manifesto.
Again I reiterate that the terrorist attacks in Norway were bad for Europe and the pro-European cause, but very good for Jews, Zionists, and Israel. Wake up indeed.
The Friday Show program page is up now, but the mp3 link is broken.
"Again I reiterate that the terrorist attacks in Norway were bad for Europe and the pro-European cause, but very good for Jews, Zionists, and Israel."
Your argument is based on reiteration, and questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. It's more manipulative than persuasive.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/anders-breiviks-opening-statement/
It's inspired me. So much of that resonated with my own experience, and my own thoughts.
The conclusions are a matter of demonstration, rather than or in fact as a matter of, explication.
Hanne Kristin Rohde who?
"Tanstaafl
"Your argument is based on reiteration, and questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. It's more manipulative than persuasive."
No, my argument is based on the purported manifesto. I notice that no one is quoting it, or even paraphrasing it, but instead projecting their pro-European fantasies onto the terrorist, instead of reading what he purportedly wrote.
If the terrorist did indeed write the manifesto, than why is his writing not being quoted here, and discussed?
Perhaps because the manifesto doesn't say what we wish it did?
Also, Tanstaafl, let's not forget that the terrorist describes himself as an "anti-racist" and declares that his opponents are the real "racists."
As the other Anonymous said:
"Can anyone imagine jews cheering for the deaths of 77 of their own who were attacking Whites, because they weren't "pro-jew" enough? "I don't care how much damage they were doing to Whites... they're not pro-jew!"
I can't imagine Jews cheering for the murder of their fellow Jews, but here we have a whole group of supposedly pro-Europeans cheering on the murder of Europeans by a Zionist who murdered Europeans due to his disgust at the Europeans supporting Palestinians Arabs over Zionist Jews and Israel - according to his own writing.
Is this how desperate White Europeans and Americans are now?
As an American, I can say we have been dealing with this sort of neo-conservative Zionist Jew thing for a decade now.
I'm not buying it.
"The Friday Show program page is up now, but the mp3 link is broken."
I subscribe to the Voice of Reason podcasts via iTunes and it downloaded okay.
Thanks Carolyn for putting your VOR broadcasts on your site so fast! Your Heretics Hour is great!
"If the terrorist did indeed write the manifesto, than why is his writing not being quoted here, and discussed?"
I scanned and quoted his compendium in the days after the attack. See Norway Attacks - Anders Behring Breivik for instance.
"Perhaps because the manifesto doesn't say what we wish it did?"
This is you projecting your own wishes.
Those who wish to understand Breivik's motives don't need to sift through a 1500+ page compendium filled with the thoughts of others. Read Breivik's testimony from the 2nd day of his trial.
Stop spamming unsubstantiated assertions here. If you think quoting Breivik's compendium is important then do so yourself, on your own blog.
Anonymous said...
5/11/2012 08:11:00 PM
>His manifesto is clear that he is not "pro-white" but rather, pro-Zionist (cultural) Christian, and he supports a united Europe, among other things, invading Turkey and Arab nations to support Israel. He even suggests invading Egypt to support the non-European Christians there. He suggests blowing up the mosque in Jerusalem and building a "half Jewish half Christian" temple. How is that "pro-White" or even pro-European?
First, thanks for your reply. I confess to not having substantially read his manifesto, I've only read parts here and there and what has been posted by others. I'll answer your question below.
I'm aware that he talks about the Cultural Marxist movement and that he's pro-Zionist. These pro-Zionist/jew sympathies appear to come from the undue influence and reliance on Gates of Vienna types of sources of information in forming his world view. He quotes Fjordman a lot. In fact he seems to have a fairly conventional, mainstream view of jews.
-------------------
Breivik writes:
For those familiar with Jewish history knows that they have been persecuted all over the world the last millennium. They have been targeted in both Muslim and Christian societies up until the 20th century. These events, in combination with sionist thought, have contributed to shape the Jewish mentality, principles and upbringing. Jews are naturally far more paranoid than most people and teach their offspring about valour, the value of long term goals, the value of saving/investing instead of spending and the value of the nuclear family and family loyalty. As such, they indoctrinate their children in a different way than Christian families do.
-------------------
But he regards Jews in a pragmatic way, and would target them if necessary.
Breivik:
There are Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, agnostic, atheist and Jewish category A and B traitors in Western Europe and they will all be targeted. And yes, many of Hollywood’s movie/entertainment producers and capital market investors are considered category A and B traitors (both Christian and Jewish). So let there be no doubt whatsoever; I would be the first person to pull the trigger, given the opportunity, if I ever saw a Jewish category A or B traitor. But I will not kill him because he is a Jew, but rather because he is guilty of indirect/direct atrocities against Europeans just like every other cultural Marxist/multiculturalist category A and B traitor. It’s essential to judge each person individually in this regard and not according to their DNA structure.
-------------------
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
Breivik's introduction to his manifesto:
Multiculturalism (cultural Marxism/political correctness), as you might know, is the root cause of the ongoing Islamisation of Europe which has resulted in the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe through demographic warfare (facilitated by our own leaders). This compendium presents the solutions and explains exactly what is required of each and every one of us in the coming decades. Everyone can and should contribute in one way or the other; it’s just a matter of will.
-----------------------
So, is he pro-White or even pro-European? Obviously so, given his virulent rejection of multiculturalism and its European consequences. What he rejects though is explicit WN and of course NS.
Anon writes:
>The manifesto shows a thorough knowledge of the Jewish cultural Marxist movement, and how it has damaged Europe, all the while shifting the blame away from Jews and Zionists who created and led the movement. It is very, very cleat the author of the manifesto was not simply unaware of the Jewish role, but was active in shifting the blame away from the perps.
Yes he does show a knowledge of cultural Marxism and its damaging effects, but from what I've read of his manifesto he simply fails to connect the dots to the jews rather than shift the blame away from them. He just blames it to Marxists. I think this failure can be explained by where he was coming from, i.e., a thoroughly PC immersed society, where to get where he has required a major effort. And his journey has been dominated by GoV, Fjordman, Robert Spencer and similar.
Anon writes:
>Again I reiterate that the terrorist attacks in Norway were bad for Europe and the pro-European cause,
In balance, I disagree. It was cruel, but It got and is getting Whites to confront their ongoing destruction via multiculturalism.
> but very good for Jews, Zionists, and Israel. Wake up indeed.
I think you mistake his obsessive focus on Islam and Muslims and being a proponent of jews and Zionism, as an end point. I see it as just a way station that he didn't progress from, probably from deciding that any further analysis had little return. After all, he wanted to take action.
The question seems to come down to this, Katana. Is it morally justifiable to kill the children of liberal elites in retribution for the White children killed by the immigrant onslaught those liberal elites have brought on? This is obviously Breivik's 'moral' calculus, such as it is. Do you endorse his position?
Very good analysis Katana. You convinced me if not the other anon.
I wonder what Breivik would have done differently (if anything) had he understood who's behind it all.
Katana quotes Breivik:
"It’s essential to judge each person individually in this regard and not according to their DNA structure."
Katana later comments:
"I think you mistake his obsessive focus on Islam and Muslims and being a proponent of jews and Zionism, as an end point."
Taken to its logical conclusion in the vein you suggest Breivik could be expected to eventually realize that Jewish ethnic aggression against the European host is rooted in the Jewish "DNA structure". If, in that instance, Breivik also came to the conclusion that racial survival is ultimately everything and morality, if one must choose one over the other, nothing, then we could expect him to endorse the removal from the stream of life of the Jewish "DNA structure".
This is something some (not naming any names - and no, I'm not referring to Katana) should perhaps consider before they lend blithely their tacit support to Breivik's actions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlIQ8lPO1Sg&skipcontrinter=1
My favorite video
Breivik has the mental capacity to plan and carryout the murder of 77 young people, on an island no less, but hasn't the capability to make the connection between cultural Marxism and the jews? Wow, White people really are special.
Captainchaos said...
5/14/2012 09:42:00 PM
>The question seems to come down to this, Katana. Is it morally justifiable to kill the children of liberal elites in retribution for the White children killed by the immigrant onslaught those liberal elites have brought on?
No, as you are killing people who are innocent.
By the way the average age of Breivik's victims on the island was 18, so it's misleading to describe teenagers as 'children'. The youngest victim was 14 and the oldest 54. I suppose the media could spin the 54 year old as a 'child' of the elite as well. For what it's worth, apparently he didn't want to shoot anyone under 16, and actually passed over a couple who looked too young.
>This is obviously Breivik's 'moral' calculus, such as it is. Do you endorse his position?
In short, no. (Meaning, going out and killing, like that.)
But, I don't think you have described Breivik's 'moral' calculus fairly. He didn't target the offspring of the elites just for being that. He targeted only the offspring of the elites who had decided to train and become, eventually, the new elites.
I think I understand why he did what he did and I believe he acted out of honest, genuine concern for native Europeans. He did, what some may call a 'monstrous' thing, but he's not a monster.
As I wrote in another post, I hope there will be two statues in Norway one day. One for Breivik and one for his victims. If there is only one for the victims then, as someone else wrote, Norway will have turned into the coldest Third World nation.
Breivik's attitude toward Jews can be summarized by the following quote :
"So,are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the Nazis".
So, although he thinks that the majority of Jews are "bad", he still believes a substatial number of them are "good". Breivik didn't evolve enough to understand that Jews of the "Gates-of-Vienna"-type only want to use "anti-jihadism" for their own (zionist) purposes, while not being interested at all in preventing the race-replacement of white Europeans (if not secretly promoting it).
The paradigm of "bad" vs. "good"Jews is the last hurdle to take for a white nationalist. Once it is understood that the mythical "good Jew" doesn't exist, serious white nationalism can begin.
"So,are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative ARE NOT."
Gosh, good thing he was not an AmRen reader! Jared would have TOTALLY freaked.
I have never been to Norway, but know Norwegian-Americans who keep in touch with their relatives and have talked to Norwegians visiting the U.S. So I am not an expert, but maybe know a little. Here is how things seem to me: Everyday Norwegians still very much like ‘sport, nature, and life in the open air’ but they do not regard this as an European or Scandinavian characteristic; they think all people feel this way. Maybe Whites are more materialistic and care less about nature than non-Whites. They know that Jews have a lot of influence in the U.S. but they think that their only/main concern is Israel. This is unfortunate and may be making peace in the Middle East less likely. They do not connect Jews to non-White immigration, the increasing coarseness of American culture, economic problems, or anything else.
Norway was of course occupied by Germany during WWII. I like to ask Norwegians alive during this period of time what it was like (This was more possible in the past than it is now.). They all say the Nazis were horrible. I then ask what was the most horrible thing they personally saw or heard about from someone they or their family knew. Their eyes then get slightly big with shock as they say they never heard of anything really bad, personally. In fact, the German soldiers were quite polite and respectful. A few say that people just didn’t want Germans around as they were not Norwegians. Everyone tries to remember some bad act by Germans. The worst I heard was that a couple of soldiers got drunk at a bar and then threw up all over a neighbor’s sidewalk and prize flowers. This was disgusting and rude. Someone else saw some German tanks going down a street with faces painted on them (sorry, I can’t remember what these were called). She was very young at the time and thought they were trolls and that they were going to eat her. Her mother told her that they were just painted tanks, but she didn’t believe it and was terrified of Germans and had many nightmares about trolls after that. True story. She really believed in trolls as a child. She was the only Norwegian I ever talked to who had negative effects from the German occupation.
Sorry, that this is so OT, but it may interest someone.
Katana, let’s explore your logic. You tell me that what Breivik did was a cruel but necessary act because of the genocidal effects of muslim (foreign) immigration. You agree that Breivik got much of his inspiration from GoV, a jewish anti-jihad site, but you think Breivik wasn’t able to grasp that GoV is the world seen through jewish eyes because of culturally intense jewish propaganda. And so his fear and hatred of the changing face of Norway caused him to murder 77 white Norwegian young people, his people. Now let’s apply your reasoning to the 77 white Norwegian young people who have been intensely propagandized by Marxist multiculturalism and jewish victimhood (both jew ‘isms’) their entire lives but who were beginning to break through the jewish victimhood meme (going beyond the jew) by evidence of their pro Palestinian stance (boycott Israel was the only banner in the pictures I’ve seen). What happened? Breivik kills them. You excuse Breivik for not being able to see beyond the jew, why don’t you excuse the others for their short coming? But instead you view those who are also in the process of waking up, but from another angle, as necessary.
As far as not blaming the jews for whatever jew ‘ism’ they run, who would you blame, the Eskimos?
With friends like you and Breivik, WN don’t need enemies.
You two do not represent me.
Breivik is not a White Nationalist but he plays one on TV.
I wrote that at the end of the war, the left expelled the conservatives from every institution in France and Norway. In fact, I don't know how far the purge went and how much it can explain today's situation.
In France, the purge in conservative newspapers and the return of the Jews in the universities probably prepared the field for the Jewish counterculture explosion of 1968. But the same counterculture developed in the United States, even though American conservative newspapers had not been shut down at the end of the war.
In 1960, Western society was still pretty conservative by today's standards. The anti-White, Jewish-influenced left was still in the incubation stage in places like the universities. Maybe what was being developed was not so much an ideology as a network of activists and infiltrators. For example, Jewish control over the media was still consolidating.
"How to explain that Norwegians didn't like Germans....Or does it just depend on what kind of propaganda they're swallowing?"
Let me offer a simple explanation. Germans make the Norwegians feel inferior. Non-whites make the Norwegians feel superior.
Many people find that Norwegians have an "inferiority complex". Their wealth is pretty new. Before 1960, Norway was the poorest country in Europe. Many Norwegians are descended from peasants and most are very status conscious.
I think they also like to make up for their remote location and tiny size by showing off how worldly ("globalist") they are.
"The worst I heard was that a couple of soldiers got drunk at a bar and then threw up all over a neighbor’s sidewalk and prize flowers. This was disgusting and rude."
It makes me think of Jews who complain about the Nuremberg laws: Jews were no longer allowed to marry non-Jews. Why would you complain about that if you really believe that the Germans tried to kill every Jew in Europe? The Jewish narrative is not entirely coherent, to say the least. The Norwegian narrative is not 100% perfect either.
What happened in Norway during WWII is probably similar to what happened in France. Like Norway, France was occupied by Germany during WWII, although unlike France, Norway had not declared war on Germany. I guess the Germans decided to invade the country before the English did it.
In France, in 1940, Marshall Pétain signed an armistice with the Germans. He was allowed to remain in charge of the French administration. He tried to take advantage of the situation to push forward his right-wing ideals. Jews were no longer allowed in some professions. The motto of the Pétain regime was Travail, Famille, Patrie (= Work, Family, Homeland). General De Gaulle, who was not yet famous, fled to London, where the BBC put him in charge of a radio bulletin, where he would urge the French to resist the Germans, as if the war had not been lost! The Norwegian government also fled to London. De Gaulle and his clique called Pétain a traitor. After the American won the war, De Gaulle managed to seize power for some time. I think he was more or less competing with the communists, and more or less allied with them. The official line was that De Gaulle and the communists had been resistance fighters, while Pétain and his supporters had been "collaborators". De Gaulle began distributing "resistance" medals and positions to his followers and to his communist allies, while pouring shame on the awful "collaborators". In fact, many French communists didn't become hostile to the German occupation of France until after Germany had attacked the Soviet Union.
Three decades after the war, in the 1970s, the communist and gaullist narrative was eclipsed by the Jewish narrative. Today, Pétain's offense is no longer that he accepted the French defeat as a fact, but that he collaborated with the German Jew-gassers. Now, it is all about the Jews. The Germans of WWII are still awful, awful people. But no longer for the same reasons.
After the war, the French government propaganda about the glorious resistance fighters was heavy and annoying. Even so, conservative French people maintained that the German occupiers had mostly been correct in their behavior. Correct is the word they used. It doesn't fit well with the Jewish narrative about German depravity. Today, if you maintain that the Germans, by and large, behaved decently during the occupation of France, you may be sued by Jews for being a revisionist. That's what happened to Le Pen in 2005. If you take the gaullist point of view and see WWII as a turf war between the German invaders and the French resistance fighters, you are incorrect too, since you fail to give the Jews the central place they deserve.
Carolyn,
"How is this argument different from that of the Jews who say that any endorsement of Hitler or National Socialism is an invitation to 'bring back' virulent antisemitism that will lead to a holocaust of 6 million Jews?"
It is different because Breivik is not Hitler and, as the Fuhrer Principle would have it, National Socialism was in large measure defined by its leading personalities - the form- and substance-giving prophets to its creed. Breivik is not a Leader, he is an executioner; a mechanism set in motion which will not stop until its function is fulfilled or energy exhausted. Breivik tells us as much in his own words. There is a threat and this threat must be dispatched summarily. That simple. If his conception of the threat were shifted from malicious individuals to the genes of entire peoples the likely outcome, given sufficient power, can hardly be shrouded in mystery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Let me clarify a few points:
Actually, the ones who said they (or their relatives) just didn’t like Germans because they were Germans and not Norwegians, were the more reflective, intelligent and less self-deluded ones. They were essentially saying that even though there was nothing wrong with them, they just didn’t want large numbers of them in their country.
Many would agree (or even say on their own without my prompting) that still Germans were far better to be around than [whomever]. Or they would say that in the old days they would boycott German products and only buy Norwegian products, but that these days they buy German products happily and try to avoid Chinese products. Some would say that they had nothing against German tourists or Germans at all, but Germany was for Germans and Norway was for Norwegians. Anyone who said this was almost certain to be opposed to non-White immigration (and far less brainwashed in general). A small percentage of these would even say (after they were sure I would not object) that Jews were the real problem. No one ever said they hated Germans NOW it was always those (mythical) “Nazis” in the past. The “Nazis” they never had any experience with but that they were nevertheless sure existed.
There is some rivalry between modern Norwegians and modern Germans, but it is mostly light-hearted. You know, somewhat like Norwegians and Swedes. (At least that has been my experience.)
Anyway, those willing and able to see any differences between peoples (like Germans and Norwegians) were more open to seeing other differences between peoples and more open to discussions of how different ethnic groups can conflict. The truly PC types who would most likely support non-White immigration would usually be too polite to discuss anything and just try to change topics or walk away. A few said that America had problems with non-Whites because Americans had slaves and are often racists, but this is not the case for Norway. They will give the non-Whites health care, quality schooling, etc. and they will be just like everyone else. (These conversations were several years ago and the people I talked with were mostly upper middle class and/or from rural areas so they had little experience with non-Whites.)
Most Norwegians simply did not want to talk about any ethnic issues. The whole thing made them feel uncomfortable. I have found that with Americans this means they know some of the truth (about racial differences, if not Jews) in their heart of hearts, but they just don’t want to face it. It makes them uncomfortable and they prefer avoidance and denial.
Captainchaos said...
5/14/2012 10:33:00 PM
>Taken to its logical conclusion in the vein you suggest Breivik could be expected to eventually realize that Jewish ethnic aggression against the European host is rooted in the Jewish "DNA structure". If, in that instance, Breivik also came to the conclusion that racial survival is ultimately everything and morality, if one must choose one over the other, nothing, then we could expect him to endorse the removal from the stream of life of the Jewish "DNA structure".
This is something some (not naming any names - and no, I'm not referring to Katana) should perhaps consider before they lend blithely their tacit support to Breivik's actions.
----------------------
Yes, he would eventually become a 'Nazi', i.e., understanding that the jews in total are a menace and threat to society and that they need to be expelled or strictly controlled. You suggest that he would then conclude that jews should be killed. But there are more humane solutions, like the thousand year old Byzantine Empire adopted, forbidding jews from being involved in matters of the law, education and finance, etc. (Check out Eustace Mullins books.)
Is there any way to edit posts here? If so pleae explain! I think I have proofread my post, but as soon as it is posted I notice another error!
A link to a Blogger page that explains making changes would be fine. Thanks!
Katana "Breivik, from my understanding, acted out of genuine desperation. feeling pushed into a corner." - This could very well be true. I'm sure Timothy McVeigh's motivations were the same, but a sincere useful idiot is still a useful idiot. The bottom line and the only fact we have is that Breivik killed 77 young people in cold blood. This makes him a monster and most people (myself included) would not want anything to do with him. So how does that help WN? It doesn't. Mission accomplish.
Pat, did your blog get holocausted?
Phall,
Apparently not only his blog, but Pat himself has succumbed six million times to the rot-livered Aussie remake of the 1970 Pearl Harbor movie: Holo! Holo! Holo!
While on set he was reportedly shot, gassed, baked in an oven, wrapped in barbed wire, impaled, scalped, skinned, crucified, lapidated, boiled, and starved to death (though spirits were mercifully not withheld).
Though like so many before him, Pat is a holocaust survivor. You may find his understandably semi-coherent ruminations on the Greatest Act of Evil in Human History at this link
Yes, the blog has been self-holocausted. A long over due event, in my humble opinion.
An interesting topic would be Jew Approved Humour.
Here, Sacha Baron Cohen complains, or jokes (it's hard to tell which) about being chased by "Hasidic nutcases" for his latest movie:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/the-dictator-star-sacha-baron-cohen-says-he-was-chased-by-a-group-of-hasidic-jews-and-feared-for-his-life/story-e6frewyr-1226360605838
"I turned round to calm them down, and I shouted in Hebrew 'I am Jewish', which apparently is the worst thing ever you can tell Hasidic Jews.
"It was then they decided that they wanted to really kill me."
All very funny, but is it Jew Approved?
Playing an anti-Semitic, wife bashing, incestuous yokel from Kazakhstan - tick.
Playing a homosexual Austrian fashionista and tv presenter - tick.
Playing a confused White boy wanting to be a gangsta - tick.
"wearing a camp version of their [Hasidic Jews] traditional costume in Jerusalem" - no tick.
But, all's well, as his new movie mocks Arab style dictators - tick.
Must be so many comic opportunities to create a movie ironically detailing Israeli politics and nationalism on the one hand, with open borders, colour-blind anti-White Juden-Yanks on the other hand.
Maybe with a sub plot involving a fleet of German donated Dolphin Class submarines, manned by Hasidic Jews, circling the globe, waiting for the final countdown.
It has promise, but would it get funding? No tick.
More OT stuff (and a long URL), but the article and comments are interesting:
More Than 40,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rally at Mets Stadium to Determine the Dangers of the Internet
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-than-40000-ultra-orthodox-jews-rally-at-mets-stadium-to-determine-the-dangers-of-the-internet/
Pat - Noooooooo!
Are you going to rise like a phoenix from the ashes?
Lurker
Katana,
"You suggest that he would then conclude that jews should be killed."
I am suggesting that and will claim it explicitly based upon my reading of the man's personality. He does not strike me as the type to exercise moral restraint unlike Hitler and his lieutenants did (i.e., the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly suggests there was no extermination attempt of Europe's Jews by National Socialist Germany due to its exercise of moral restraint).
"But there are more humane solutions,"
Yup. And it is men more magnanimous than Breivik who could never allow their remedies to the Jewish Question to excede the bounds of the humane.
Presenting Breivik as a White National diverts discussion of the real issue which is Norway's going it's own way i.e. doing -its peoples bidding. Here is a guy that puts the real issue in a clear light.
Hei Hu Quan said...
No matter the patsy (in this case a Norwegian alleged to be named Anders Behring Breivik), it's always the same script. The lone nutter, madly zealous in their beliefs, that never fail to marry directly to the interests that those who actively engineer scapegoated terror, wish to propagate. In this case as well as a great many other "terrorist" incidents, I've absolutely no doubts whatsoever that Israeli intelligence is behind this, combined with accomplices from the U.S. intelligence community. Norway has proven to be exponentially in opposition to furthering the interests of the Zionist agenda. Whereas elsewhere in the world governments and their power enforcers queue up in line to slavishly serve Israel in whatever criminal capacity they require. Expedited with complete and flagrant disregard to what the populace demands and desires. Norway has made clear and bold moves in their open support of Palestine becoming an independent, sovereign nation, in addition to hosting boycotts that were very damaging to Israel on a number of levels.
One very compelling piece of evidence to provide an example, was published in the Jerusalem Post August 23, 2010 headlined 'Norway Oil Fund divests from Israeli companies'. The story reported the following "Norway's Ministry of Finance announced that the Norway Oil Fund divested from Africa-Israel Investments and Danya Cebus Ltd. on Monday.
The reason given is the companies' construction in the West Bank.
The Norwegian Finance Ministry said, "The ethics council stresses that construction of settlements in the occupied territories violates the decision of the Geneva convention regarding defense of civilians during war time. Several decisions of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice have reached the conclusion that construction of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories is prohibited."
In another case in September 2009, Norway's Finance Ministry announced that the Norwegian pension fund was divesting from Elbit Systems because of the company's involvement in building the West Bank apartheid fence.
It is now coming out that this character Anders Behring Breivik, whom the Norway terror attack is being pinned on, has a right-wing background. Well, considering that Norway's staunchly right-wing Progress party are vehement supporters of Israel and were the only party in Norway to support Israel's war on Gaza in 2008-2009, I would say that is one of the first places I would investigate as a terrorist staging ground, and possible centre of recruitment for the patsies in this attack would be this lot.
July 23, 2011 2:17 PM
http://thirteenthmonkey.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway-isreal-unfavourable-relations.html
Dreaming the Iron Dream
http://northwestfront.org/2010/10/dreaming-the-iron-dream/
Post a Comment
<< Home