After the Oslo bombings the western society seems to be peculiar unwilling to take notice of the background of the attacks. Geir Lippestad, lawyer of Anders Behring Breivik, son of the retired Norwegian diplomat Jens David Breivik, who just killed 76 people in Oslo, told the Australian Associated Press on July 26th that „the whole case indicates that he’s insane“ and that he „has a view on reality that is very, very difficult to explain“.
The view on reality, that is so „difficult to explain“, is explained in the same AAP message as following: He says he was on a Crusade to save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim invasion and that the attacks targeting the Labour Party-led government and its youth wing were „cruel“ but „necessary“. „He believes this war will continue for 60 years and in 60 years this war will be won,“ Lippestad said.
Of course it’s hard to explain that people in the 21st century go on a crusade for 60 years and it is surely insane. However, Anders Breivik is apparently not the only one on a crusade. There’s for example Paul Ray, who blogs fighting against islam under the nickname of the ancient crusader King Richard I of England, and leads a group called „The Ancient Order of the Templar Knights.“ Paul Ray was formerly a leading head behind a group protecting „the inalienable rights of all people to protest against radical Islam’s encroachment into the lives of non-Muslims“ called English Defence League, or short EDL.
In it’s mission statement, the EDL describes itelf as a human rights organisation and declares that „it is time for the whole world to unite against a truly Global Jihad.“ This is quite similar to the believes of Anders Behring Breivik, who describes himself as a templar knight fighting a crusade against islam, but advises to use a public label of christian „cultural conservative“. In technics of ideology and camouflage, the EDL and Anders Behring Breivik seem to be almost identical. In their crusade for defending human rights against „radical islam“ the EDL uses most times the cross as their insignia, but they also march with the flag of their zionist allies.
EDL's Roberta Moore (next to her: Jonathan Hoffman from the Zionist Federation)
Of course, Paul Ray says, he has never met Anders Behring Breivik, but says also, EDL’s financier and political controller Alan Lake fits well the desciption of a person described by Breivik as „Richard“, the „perfect knight.“ Needless to say, Alan Lake also denied having any link to mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.
EDL forum member number 3614 is obviously the account of Anders Behring Breivik. He stated in his „2083″ manifest, he used the name Sigurd the Crusader, and there he is, Sigurd Jorsalfare.
The source of the ideology seems also rather similar. Where the ideology of the EDL in relation to the Quran comes from was a couple of months ago revealed by the BBC. The BBC showed Amit Singh, an EDL spokesperson, of whom the BBC says he’s admired somewhat as one of the brains of the EDL, as he just got a delivery of quotes from the Quran from his researcher in Israel.
The world view of Anders Behring Breivik is basically congruent with the bases laid out by the zionist writer Gisele Littman, whose husband David Littman played the key role, Mural, in the Mossad’s Operation Mural and was therefore lauded by Israeli president Shimon Peres in 2008.
For decades, Gisele Littman spread the view, that Islamic rule means dhimmitude for non-Muslims what is described as a „specific social condition that resulted from jihad,“ and as the „state of fear and insecurity“ of „infidels“ who are required to „accept a condition of humiliation.“ In 2005 she published her book Eurabia. On February 7, 2005, addressing a pro-Israeli „Middle East Forum“ in New York she described European changes away from Israel and towards arab countries and muslims. In her own articulate words:
Europe is undergoing two profound changes. The first is the weakening of Christianity. The second is demographic decline. Presently, across Europe, there are only two-thirds the number of children born necessary to sustain the population. The consequent drop in population has mostly been made good by immigration of Muslims. The fast-growing Muslim population is generally not integrated into the host societies nor politically acculturated to its norms. … Europe is rapidly being transformed into „Eurabia,“ a cultural and political appendage of the Arab/Muslim world that is fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Western and anti-American. … This pernicious merger began with Charles De Gaulle in the 1960s. … In order to unify Europe, the continent needed to form an international bloc that could rival America. The Arab nations of the Middle East, unparalleled in their oil wealth, seemed to be good partners. … Since then, France has adopted a highly amiable policy toward the Arab world and a hostile attitude toward Israel. … Mass immigration of Arabs across the Mediterranean to Europe, which was part of the friendship agreement, will only strengthen the Eurabian phenomenon. … Americans need to take an assertive role in both combating Eurabia’s dangers and preventing a similar merger from occurring within their own country, for this is a danger. … Americans need to embrace their own genuinely pluralist culture. They should not renounce their identity and Judeo-Christian values to appease the current assertive intolerance emanating from the Arab/Muslim world.Littman’s Dhimmi-Eurabia bashing of multiculturalism is about as much a serious discussion of Islam as was Henry Ford’s „The International Jew“ union bashing a serious discussion of Judaism back in the 20s – ie not at all, but it is the basic ideological theme underlying both the activity of the EDL and the the world view of Anders Behring Breivik. Of course, regarding to the alleged „danger“ or „assertive intolerance emanating from the Arab/Muslim“, Europe goes in this world view of an identity of „Judeo-Christian values“ there pretty much for the same as the USA.
This prism is since more than a century the cornerstone for US and European support for Israel. If there is a struggle of folks having „Judeo-Christian values“ against an „Arab/Muslim world“ than Israel is an outpost of the culture of „Judeo-Christian values“ directly bordering the „Arab/Muslim world“ and it must be defended as such by Europe and the USA. Theodore Herzl, the first major brain behind the creation of Israel, explained this basic logic of the reason for western support of Israel more than a century ago in his book „Der Judenstaat“ as the following:
„For Europe we shall create there in Palestine an outpost against Asia, we shall be the vanguard of the civilised world against barbarism.“That resonated some decades later quite well in the nationalist circles of Europe. Sir Ronald Storrs, British governor of Palestine in the 1930s, argued that:
„A Jewish state… could be for England a „little Jewish Ulster“ in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.“Having Europe and the USA to view the world through this prism is of utmost interest for the jewish state of Israel, and especially for the zionist settler colonies in the west bank. The view of the world’s religions as equal, the principle of world order to be the rule of law between equals and the goal of the development of society as a multicultural one, where all the religions could live peacefully together is antagonistic to this. It leads to the conclusions that Europe should treat Israel and it’s neighboring arab countries equally, support building a Palestinian state based the 1967 borders or one common state in whole ancient Palestine for all it’s inhabitants equally, view zionist settlers building outposts in the westbank as illegal occupiers, demand equal rights for non-jews in Israel, and, finally, open a view on the history of Israel through a prism that sees the jewish state of Israel as a European colonial enterprise which resulted in an apartheid like status quo in the historic lands of Palestine.
Viewing Israel as an outpost of „Judeo-Christian values“ in a hostile uncivilized western Asian environment is far from being a minority view in western Europe or the USA, just to the opposite, it has been the view of the political majority for the recent decades and can be found in most of mass media reports of almost all the major European countries, from Germany to England, from France to Italy.
But this view is changing now to a degree. There are various reasons for this, like better access to different
sources of information from Israel and the occupied territories, uncovered zionist historic myths and dirty tricks, and, not at least, muslim immigrants telling the story of Palestine from an arab point of view. With muslim immigrants making up more voters and western corporations having huge business interests in the markets and resources of arab countries, there also comes more and more political and economic pressure to build up a foreign policy handling arab and muslim states equal to Israel.
For Israel and it’s supporters demonizing islam is a central tool to counter these upcoming political pressures for gradual but effective changes of the foreign policy of western powers regarding western Asia. The theory of Gisele Littman is just fine to serve this purpose in an articulate manner, but there are many more staunch supporters of Israel in politics and mass media contributing to keep alive the prism of a „Judeo-Christian“ fight against „islamic barbarism“ or „islamism.“
The blueprints to demonize a religion are very well known to most zionists. They just need to copycat the racial slurs of the Nazis against the jews, exchange jews against muslims in that propaganda, exchange Hitler’s „clash of the races“ against a „clash of the cultures“ and replace anti-semitic stereotypes with anti-muslim stereotypes.
That is exactly what is going on in the moment in Europe and the USA. Supporters of Israel build up massive new fascist movements in Europe and the USA modeled after Nazi Germany’s Hitler movement, where the Nazis’ anti-Semitism is replaced by „criticism of Islam“.
These pro-Israeli fascist networks have grown very large and built up political parties of a new look of fascism. In the U.S. the zionist evangelicals and the similar zionist tea party are a big factor in the political power play and in many European countries such zionist fascist parties from Geert Wilders party in the Netherlands to Vlaams Belang in Belgium sit in the parliaments with double digit election results. Besides being supported from Israel the main driver of their polical success is spreading fear in the style „we or Islam“.
For not being stigmatized as Nazis, they call their political mix of doctrines to spread hate against leftists, liberlism and a minority religion not Nazism, but „cultural conservatism“. And the spin to fight for preserving „Judeo-Christian values“ in Europe against an alleged „intolerance emanating from the Arab/Muslim world“ gives the deeply cultural racist movements a veil of a struggle for human rights, so that in a total perversion of any menaing of human rights even the EDL describes it’s own activities known for it’s violence as human rights activism.
While it is mainstream to spread hate against leftism, liberalism and islam, and lot’s of pro-Israeli journalists do so over and over again to lay the basics, there are special additions of rhetoric kicks on top of that in some side niches. One of such a top rhetoric kick is coined the reign of „political correctness“ or „cultural Marxism“ as opposed to a good „cultural conservatism.“ As the term sounds bad for many, but in reality undefined, the label „cultural marxist“ can be easily used to slander veryone, or a deliberate selection, like all people suspected of not doing enough for Israel. Even Charles de Gaulle could be labeled as „cultural marxist“. Essentially that technic is a copy of the Nazi’s rhetoric strategy who defamed all and any cultural works they didn’t like as „cultural bolshevism„. Of course, the fruits from that are well known: after the Nazis took power in Germany they burned books as well as they took decisive action against „degenerate“ art and music, which they viewed to be „Judeo-Bolshevism“ or to bear an „Un-German Spirit“ and therefore was considered to be against the Nazi’s „beloved“ German cultural conservatism.
Most jewish pro-Israeli propagandists in the mass media know the ideological source of the phrase of „cultural marxism“ quite well, and as they know it can backfire they don’t use these rhetoric figures of the Nazis, but instead concentrate to lay the groundwork by demonizing Islam and complaining about the need of „political correctness“. But that does not apply to christian zionists. The „cultural marxism“ rhetoric kick is not mainstream, but it was promoted only by some extremists like the member of the Council for National Policy, Paul Weyrich, and his followers of his Free Congress Foundation are still promoting such rhetoric to some millions of fanatic followers.
Other typical rhetoric kicks of the pro-Israeli islam haters are to blow up the slightly increasing part of muslim population in European countries to an act of war, calling it „demographic warefare“, and naming each and all crime committed by any muslim an act of jihad, that is an act of an organized war against Europe. Pro-Israeli fascist bloggers, who run under the radar of serious debate, give their audience the full programm of Nazi rhetoric against Muslims while at the same time they are inflationary naming anyone daring to criticize them for inciting hate against Muslims a Nazi, an anti-Semite, a totalitarian censor, or a red Nazi. They call Islam a „hate ideology“, inherently fascist or more directly „islamofascist“. The best example for all this is probably what’s written under the pseudonym „Fjordman“ whom Anders Breivik claims to be his favorite writer. Anders Breivik is ideologically so close to „Fjordman“ that it seems reasonable he himself might be one of those who used that pseudonym to publish articles in various Islam-demonizing pro-Israeli hate blogs.
And that’s exactly the ideology Anders Breivik has in his brain. In his mind Europe is in „danger“. Islam is waging jihad against Europe, using as immigration and getting children as means of demographic warefare, and with the aim to subordinate all indigenious Europeans into dhimmitude. Conservatives and nationalists allied with Israel could easily defend Europe from this danger if they had power, by just expelling all and every muslim from Europe.
But unfortunately, Breivik analyzed, in Europe reign „cultural marxists“, and though they are „degenerates“ they control almost everything, from politics to mass media, and they win all the political elections because they conspire with muslims to open the gates for muslim immigration and import muslim voters. So these „cultural marxists“ are traitors against their own indigenous christian people, opening the gates to let happen an inflow of floods of muslims just to win elections and keep political control for a while.
In Breivik’s thinking these „cultural marxist“ traitors conspiring with the islamic enemy are even worse than Nazis, as Nazis just murdered a part of the indigenous population – mostly jewish. But the „cultural marxist“ traitors are planning to steal indigenious their culture and submit them into the horrors of dhimmitude. These cultural marxists in politics are – besides left parties – especially most of the social democrats, the liberals and the christian moderates, who are deeply infiltrated and taken over by degenerates and traitors to open the gates for muslim immigration.
Of course, that world view is really hard to understand. It seems unbelievable. Could anyone really believe social democrats are as evil or even more evil than Nazis? The popular U.S. „conservative“ TV and radio host Glenn Beck, having a minimum cumulative audience of about nine million people weekly, seems to have similar views. Just after he came back from a warm welcome in the Israeli knesset and Breivik killed 76 people, most of them of the social democratic youth organisation in Norway, Glenn Beck said on his nationally-syndicated radio show: „There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.“
The conclusion is not far, that, if the social democratic youth „sounds a little like“ the Hitler youth than the social democratic prime minister Jens Stoltenberg is somebody like Hitler. Those who tried to kill Hitler, be it the British Special Operations Executive plotting „Operation Foxley“ or those nationalists trying to kill Hitler with a British bomb on July 20th and staging a nationalist coup, are commonly considered heroes today.
If Stoltenberg and the Norwegian social democrats are blamed to be like Hitler, than it is not so far fetched to assume that there might get somebody the idea that it would be a heroic deed to take out this Hitler and his followers. The new pro-Israeli anti-islam fascist movements constantly blame all their opponents to be Nazis, like Hitler or worse.
The massacre in Norway is extreme, but far from being a lone standing act. On the same day as Breivik committed the massacre in Norway, the Madinah mosque in the British town Luton was vandalized, people sprayed the Nazi swastika on it along with graffiti in support of the „islam-critic human rights organisation“ EDL. Words have consequences on the thinking of people. And as long as there is nothing serious done against that zionist inspired hate speech, there will be lot’s of people committing such crimes.
Anders Breivik is far from a loner. He himself called the killing spree last not least a marketing action for a huge paper he mailed out minutes before the crime, called „2083 – A European declaration of independence“, after a „Fjordman“-article posted at the zionist islam hater blog „Brussels Journal“ on 2007-03-16. There he lines out his strategy of his „60 year crusade“ that he considers a war against Islam and „cultural marxist traitors“ conspiring with the enemy, ultimately leading to regime change in a „conservative coup“.
For those who are not common with usual strategies for regime change involving terror here is a short strategy definition of Brian Crozier from March 21, 1959 in The Nation: Anatomy of Terrorism:
Terrorism is a weapon of the weak. If a group of like-minded men feels strong enough, it will attack its enemy frontally. In the early stages of a rebellion, the insurgents seldom feel that strong. Terrorism, in fact, is nearly always the weapon in the first stage of „resistance.“ The second stage is guerrilla war, the third, all-out war. Some insurrections never get beyond the first stage, like Cyprus. Some progress to the second stage, as in Palestine in the years before Great Britain gave up its mandate or start with it, like the Irish insurrection in 1916.Brian Crozier, who became later a biographer of French Gladio boss Francois de Grossouvre, knew well what he was writing about. As people educated a bit in the recent western history know well, the „Cercle Violet„, it’s member Brian Crozier and his fellow people from the parallel intelligence organisation „The 61“ are to be credited for having been one of the most important driving forces behind the broad „conservative cultural revolution“ which brought to power people like Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the USA. In July 1979, Brian Crozier was a featured speaker at the „Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism“ organised by the Jonathan Institute named after Bibi Netanyahu’s brother. In Germany Crozier’s campaign for a conservative regime change to cercle member Franz Josef Strauss was well on track, too, – with lot’s of propaganda about deficits of the social-liberal goverment in the fight against terror, but failed when a bomb from a Gladio-connected fascist exploded prematurely in Munich and exposed the deep right connection behind the terror. So, whatever one might say about Brian Crozier, he’s certainly someone who knows a bit on terror and conservative revolutions.
And here is the plan outlined by Anders Breivik for his 60 year crusade that he wants to result in a „conservative coup“:
A Declaration of pre-emptive WarBreivik’s strategy of phasing his war in terror, guerilla fight and open war follows exactly the pattern laid out by Brian Crozier more than 50 years ago. It’s basically using the same principles the CIA, the MI6 and other intelligence agencies used for decades to bring other countries to the boiling point to overthrowing governments not liked by the USA. In his manifest he details how to use terror and real sentiments in the population to start violent confrontations eventually leading to civil war and regime change. For example, he notes, that an attack on muslim women might make muslim men so engry that they go on rampage for revenge. That revenge then could be used as justification for more violence against muslims, which might spark even more revenge again and so on.
…
European Civil War, Phase 1 – 1999-2030
…
- Open source warfare, military shock attacks by clandestine cell systems.
…
European Civil War, Phase 2 – 2030-2070
…
- Consolidation continues, more advanced forms of resistance groups.
…
European Civil War, Phase 3 – 2070-2083
…
- Pan-European coup d’états. Cultural Communism/multiculturalism defeated in the first European country followed by the rest.
…
Anders Breivik carefully notes that disrupting the economy in western Euopean countries with acts of sabotage will contribute to a climate favourable for a vioent fight. However, after the European governments ruined the public budgets in solidarity with bancrupt bankers and pointless military interventions in various parts of the world and the business elites sold European jobs to various countries in the world there is hardly much sabotage needed anymore to disrupt European economies. With the scisors between poor and rich opening more and more in many European countries the general economic conditions became already quite favourable for violent riots.
And as in the years between World War I and World War II jewish immigrants were a perfect scapegoat for the elites which ruined economy and state budgets by fighting World War I, the elites now take muslims as scapegoats for diverting attention from their errors, failures and criminality in the recent decade.
Between World War I and World War II rich people from the Germany’s, European and US elites like Henry Ford proudly financed the Hitler party, because they saw supporting it’s murderous anti-semitism as weapon against so coined „jewish bolshevism“ and therefore a tool to fight unions at home and the spread of marxism from the Soviet Union.
Henry Ford proudly receives Nazi Germany's Adlerorden 1938
With mass media using muslims instead of jews now as effective scapegoats to deflecting from the western elites’ failures, that history is on the verge of repeating itself. And as the anti-Semitic Nazi movement was backed by powerful business circles to advance their foreign interests against the Soviet Union, the fascist anti-islam movement now is backed by potent Zionist extremists. For those it is already a great success to advance their Israeli interests, if the European public comes to the conclusion that there is something like a worldwide fight of „christian-judeo culture“ against „muslim-marxist barbarians“. That is a lot of motivation to poor fuel from outside into the rightwing fire and keep it burning.
What Anders Breivik tries to do in Europe not insane, but a very real attempt to start a long lasting civil war aiming at a fascist coup in the whole of Europe just as murderer Yigal Amir, who is now seen as a hero by some right zionists, changed the course of the middle east by the means of fascist terror and made the way free for Bibi Netanyahu to grab power.
Fascism is not a phenomen of lower class only. Using racist slurs to spread hate against communism, socialism and unions was always a cornerstone of the fascist agenda and secured it support from corporations, rich people and some domestic religious leaders. And so, it’s no wonder, that there are more wealthy and influential people on a similar crusade as Anders Behring Breivik, the EDL and their likes. There is, for example, an almost 10 year old video of a guy telling world audience that he’s going on a crusade and that it’s going to take „a while“.
That was said on September 16th, 2001. The guy who announced this crusade is named George W. Bush, and he did so as he was angry about some people belonging to a muslim jihad group called Al Qaeda for killing about 3,000 fellows in the USA. Shortly after his announcement the words were followed by action, which led so far to the death of between a few hundred thousand and two million people.
This guy, George W. Bush, is a US Republican and an extreme right wing nut, but like it or not, at the time he declared the tenth crusade, he was president of the United States of America. Of course, he has a view on reality that is, from a liberal point of view, very, very difficult to explain. So, there is good reason for others to take high moral grounds against such insanity. Here is a video of an example of a sane Democrat, Madeleine Albright, explaining on May 12th 1996, the details of this morale calculation.
Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright a question on the US-driven embargo on Iraq: „We have heard that a half million children have died, I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?“ And Albright replied: „I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.“
It’s easy to see that the fine terminology used by Madeleine Albright differs significantly from that used by Anders Breivik, who just said „cruel but necessary.“ And of course, ot only the words, but also the motivs of Madeleine Albright and Anders Breivik were competely different. While Madeleine Albright was paving the way to OIL, or Operation Iraqi Liberation as the long form of the US military acronym was, Anders Breivik believes he defended his country with his deeds.
And though it might be hard to understand there were some people who objected the fine judgement of morale calculation explained by Bill Clinton’s UN-ambassador at the time, Madeleine Albright. One guy told CNN in March 1997:
„We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation.“The name of the guy who said that was Osama bin Laden. It’s the guy, whom George W. Bush was especially angry about, as he declared the tenth crusade on September 16th, 2001, after 3,000 Americans were killed with planes in New York and Washington.
So, liberals may argue, the times of mass murderers like Clinton hungering out hundred thousands of children in Iraq, of an infuriated Bin Laden killing some thousand US-Americans in a jihad and of a nut like Bush going on a crusade to avenge that are finished now. Finally, there’s Barack Obama in charge, the winner of a Norwegian „peace prize“. It sounds nice, but those who look a bit more into the details, easily find out, that commander Barack Obama not only continues Bush’s crusade, but enlarged it to fighting against six predomninantly muslim countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and now Libya.
Here is a picture from an EDL crusader fighting for commander Barack Obama against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – protecting English „culture“ and their „democratic way of life“, as the EDL puts it in it’s mission statement:
EDL crusader fighting in Afghanistan for Obama in 2011
The moral crisis of US-led zionist society in western countries, that people like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama each killed many more people than Osama Bin Laden and Anders Breivik together doesn’t make halt on the doorsteps of Norway. Though the perception of Norway is somewhat different, because it regularly honors fugitive mass murderers like Henry Kissinger with „peace prizes“, Norway is far from being a peaceful country.
Of course, Norway has slightly fewer guns distributed among it’s population than Iraq, but Alfred Nobels land still belongs to the top European countries in terms of having distributed guns per capita of popuation. It wasn’t heard for the killer to get guns. After failing to buy an AK-47 in the Czech Republic, he just bought the guns he used to massacre his fellow Norwegians in his home country Norway – in a completey legal way. It way more than easy to get them.
But it’s not only that Norway is a country obsessed with guns what makes it inherently violent. Killing other people is as much accepted as a means of conflict regulation in Norwayas in many other NATO countries. The Norwegian military took part in each and every of NATO countries recent wars of aggression. The Norwegian military attacked Yugoslavia, it conquered Afghanistan and Iraq, and Norway bombed Libya as much as hardly any other country.
Norwegian governments led by both major parties were engaged in wars of choice against other countries, the social democrats as well as the christian democrats. Peope buying into their stories that these bloody wars were neccessary to protect innocent people from imminent lethal dangers may have no major moral problem with these wars and the killing of other people, which is inherent in each war.
But those who identify with those attcked won’t buy into the propaganda quickly relabeling former good business friends as tyrants and dictators and to mercilessly kill them and their followers in masses using NATO’s state of the art killing equipment to do so. People can become quite upset if thei own government kills scores of people which they see as their brothers.
That seems to have happened to Anders Behring Breivik, too. In his „2083″ manifest he describes it in a staged interview with himself with the following words:
Q: What tipped the scales for you? What single event made you decide you wanted to continue planning and moving on with the assault?It’s not that Anders Breivik was in any way obsessed with human rights in the normal terminology. He endorsed mass killings of muslims by Serbian nationalists in Kosovo and by the U.S. in Iraq. But the bombing of Serbia he perceived as killing of his brothers, and he knew well that the separatist KLA, which substantially contributed to incite the civil war in Kosovo, was secretly supported by major western countris from very early on. The killings of those he perceived as brothers – whom he saw defending themselves against western backed jihadists – had not very much of a credible moral and legal basis. Under international law the bombings of Serbia were completely illegal as they lacked an authorisation by the UN Security Council. Justified was the bombing of Yugoslavia largely with what now seems to be selectively chosen information or even outright lies. Morally, the Norwegian Christian Democratic government, taking part in this bombing campaign, broke the most basic of all of the bible’s values: „Though shall not kill!“ Though the Social Democratic Party of Norway is not neccessarily christian, taking part in wars of aggression it also breaks routinously the most fundamental principle of it’s human rights agenda: „The right to live.“
A: For me, personally, it was my government’s involvement in the attacks on Serbia (NATO bombings in 1999) several years back. It was completely unacceptable how the US and Western European regimes bombed our Serbian brothers.
Worse of that, the government’s involvement in illegal and immoral mass killings in other countries is not only tolerated by most of the judiciary, the king, the mass media and the church, but even endorsed. Nobody, neither the goverment, nor the parliamentarians allowing such actions were handcuffed and imprisoned after they decided to fight their wars of choice. And while the reasons given to the public for war and it’s inherent mass killings, behind the doors are other things debated. Related to the military action in Libya, it was for example argued, that taking Libya’s oil production from the market brings higher oil prices and Norway as a large oil exporter due to this a war profit of more than 50 million US-Dollar a day.
If mass killings perpetrated in wars of choice are the moral compass, that the Norwegian government shows in leading by example, what do they expect from their fellow Norwegians which moral compass regarding the respect for the life of others they will follow? There is no other answer than that the Norwegian society has a big problem with it’s moral credibility.
And that problem does not only exist in Norway, but in the whole so called civilized western world. All the educational efforts, the lessons of history, the democratic processes, the free press and so many more highly valued institutions, which are forming the very foundation of the highly developed western societies have been proven unable to stop their leaders fighting wars of choice, killing millions of people, over and over again, and with total impunity.
What the world witnesses now in the case of Norway is at least in part blowback of foreign policy: the European wars of choice against different countries in the world come back to the core lands of western Europe. That is no strange suggestion, the official 9/11 commission in the US found blowback to be an important factor for 9/11, too.
If the western Euopean countries want to avoid going down further the road of terrorist attacks and insurgency straight in direction to civil war in Europe, it is essentially that they stop fueling it.
Therefore it’s needed to reject the world view that there is a fight between „christian-judeo culture“ and muslims, between we and them, to have the intelligence agencies monitor pro-Israeli muslim haters as intensely as they containing classic neofascists, to bring more truth instead of war propaganda and fear mongering against muslims in the mass media, to engage in bridging the gap between poor and rich in a just way, to create jobs with strong efforts of re-industrialization, to seriously fight corrution in government and to cut the financial sector back to size and finally, to stop arming and training terrorist and separat outfits in other countries, to start seriously tackling the grave problem, that western societies routinely go to war and kill masses of people in other parts of the world with an unbelievable levity, and finally, to try to rebuild a participative European society based on it’s elsewhere proudly proclaimed European principles and values.
Looking at the so called political elite in western countries one may doubt it will happen anytime soon and the horror of Anders Bering Breivik’s vision of Europe falling into cvil war may become sad reality.
Postscriptum: Johan Galtung seems to have quite similar thoughts to those laid out here – that this new fascist movement and it’s ideology should be taken very seriously – but in inteview with „Democracy Now“ he managed somehow not once to mention the ideology of zionism. But he tracks „the Breivik ideology“ down to Bernard Lewis about whom Wikipedia says: American historian Joel Beinin has called him „perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community …“
No comments:
Post a Comment