Anders Behring Breivik And The EDL Sound A Lot Like Militant Islam
ANDERS Breivik says he not work alone. No, it’s not the voices in his head. He is lucid. He admits carrying out the attacks but says he is not guilty of any crime. He “believes that he needed to carry out these acts to save Norway [and Europe from] cultural Marxism and Muslim domination.”
Nothing secures redemption and freedom better than murdering those who might not agree with you. Breivik wants his day in the limelight – it will make for pathetic and painful listening.
The man says there are “two further cells in our organization”.
It all sounds a lot like terrorism. It might even sound like the enemy within. You know, like those jhihadis.
This afternoon, I called Tommy Robinson, the E.D.L.’s leader, who called Breivik a “nutcase,” but said that European politicians risked similar atrocities if they didn’t start addressing “the fucking elephant in the room.” “I think it was predictable,” Robinson said of the attack. “I think it’s disgusting, and my thoughts and prayers are with all the victims. We don’t want English lads blowing themselves up on our soil, but that will happen if they don’t give us a platform.” He continued, “I don’t think any of them understand the undercurrent of anger. He’s just a sick lone individual, but you’ve got a lot of angry people. And if British politicians don’t learn from this, God forbid, it might happen again.”
Can anyone out there suggest who he sounds like? Let’s change a single word:
This afternoon, I called Tommy Robinson, the E.D.L.’s leader, who called Breivik a “nutcase,” but said that European politicians risked similar atrocities if they didn’t start addressing “the fucking elephant in the room.” “I think it was predictable,” Robinson said of the attack. “I think it’s disgusting, and my thoughts and prayers are with all the victims. We don’t want Muslim lads blowing themselves up on our soil, but that will happen if they don’t give us a platform.” He continued, “I don’t think any of them understand the undercurrent of anger. He’s just a sick lone individual, but you’ve got a lot of angry people. And if British politicians don’t learn from this, God forbid, it might happen again.”
They are two sides of the same coin. It’s not “Norways 9/11”, as the Sun screeched (a media 404). It is not, as one Norwegian police official, said, “probably more Norway’s Oklahoma than its World Trade Centre“.
It is neither one nor the other. The mass murderes does not fit into a side. The dark-skinned Islamist and the blonde-blued Crusader share much in common.
Bendan O’Neill puts it well:
In much of the media, particularly amongst the respectable broadsheet press, there was a palpable sense of relief when it was revealed that the alleged killer is white with far-right tendencies. This means he is the kind of person we can unambiguously hate. Where Islamist terror attacks, from 9/11 to 7/7, induce in some liberal observers torn and tortured feelings, where they want to condemn the violence but also feel the need to explain it as a natural reaction to evil Western foreign policy, Anders Behring Breivik is someone they can despise in an uncomplicated way. This means that while the attacks may not be ‘Norway’s 9/11’, they could well be the cultural elite’s 9/11 – in the sense that this is an act which the influential liberal classes may seek to politicise in an opportunistic fashion, to make moral mileage out of, in the same way that the right did after 11 September 2001.
Take Aslak Sira Myhre writing in the Guardian:
I share the fear and pain of my country – but in Norway this kind of insane act has always had its origins in the far right
Mass murder is now a time for point scoring. The nihilist escapes under a cloud of media bullshit and political bias. To blame one ideology for mass murder is akin to saying authodox Islam creates Islamic terror.
Once again, the heart of darkness lies buried deep within ourselves. The terrorist was a white Nordic male; not a Muslim, but a Muslim hater.
Is Breivik just an expression of an entire people? Is he just the typcial right-wing Norwegian who dared to do? Is he just a typical Nordic gent? Was 7/7 ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan just a typical Muslim?
This madness is further manifest in Anthony Browne who blames an entire country:
Yet as the attacks show, the country has a dark side. Norwegians have, until very recently, had little contact with the outside world – they couldn’t afford to travel and no one went to visit.
Those Norwegians, eh. They’re a mass murder waiting to happen.
Mark Steyn has something to add:
The opening sentence from USA Today:
Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.
So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:
Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.
But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent.
Do you see? The minorities are under attack from the white Christian mob – who must be protected. Isn’t that a lot like Breivik’s argument that the white Christians are under attack from the bown Muslim mob and must be protected? These mass murderers – 9/11; 7/7; Oklahoma; and Breivik – all spout their views from the same corrupt hymn sheet.
They all want to be victims. And isn’t the quest for victimhood the epitome of modern life in the West? The jihadi and the right-wing Nazi are both products of the same system. They should understand each other better…