The Scandalous Lies of ‘Hope Not Hate’

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and the author of “While Europe Slept” and “Surrender.” His book "The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind" is just out from Broadside / Harper Collins.


Pages: 1 2

The list reads, in large part, like an honor roll of courageous truth-tellers.  In the U.S., people like David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, and Andrew McCarthy.  In Canada, Ezra Levant.  In the U.K., Roger Scruton.  In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders.  In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard.  And so on.

But no, this isn’t meant as an honor roll.  It’s a list of individuals – and organizations, too, among them the David Horowitz Freedom Center – that, according to a new “Counter-Jihad Report” by a British group called Hope Not Hate, make up a nefarious network of Islamophobic extremists who inspired the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring-Breivik.

It’s no coincidence that this “report” was issued to coincide with the beginning of Breivik’s trial, which started on Monday.  For the people at Hope Not Hate seek to draw an explicit cause-and-effect connection between writings by various critics of Islam and the atrocities of July 22.

One thing’s clear: Breivik has been a terrific gift to those who, for whatever reason, have long been eager to shift focus away from the danger of Islam and to argue that it’s the criticism of Islam that’s the real danger.

It hasn’t been easy for these folks.  Over the last decade, as a result of one brutal jihadist atrocity after another – 9/11, Madrid, London, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai, etc., etc. – Islam has been associated in the Western mind with bloodthirsty slaughter.  Then, on July 22 of last year, a single man, acting alone, killed dozens of people, purportedly in the name of anti-jihadism.  His actions provided everyone who’d like to whitewash Islam with an opportunity to associate not Islam, but its critics, with savage violence.

The people at Hope Not Hate didn’t let this opportunity pass them by.  So – voilà, the “Counter-Jihad Report,” the implicit premise of which is that to be opposed to jihad is, by definition, not only a bad but a downright dangerous thing.

Not that the “report” actually addresses the subject of jihad – no, jihad itself is left almost entirely out of the equation.  Indeed, to read this thing, you’d almost think that jihad were some fantasy cooked up by “counter-jihadists” in order to smear Islam.

I won’t mince words: the “report” is a thoroughly repulsive piece of work.  One repulsive thing about it is that it brings together the names of serious, respectable, and well-informed critics of Islam – individuals and organizations that are profoundly concerned about the rise of Islam in the West because they recognize it as a threat to freedom and human rights – with the names of neo-Nazis.  Also repulsive is the masthead on this page, on which pictures of David Horowitz and Geert Wilders are juxtaposed with a photo of Breivik, in full faux-military regalia, aiming his gun.

In a sane world, such a juxtaposition of images would be more than enough to make it clear that Hope Not Hate is a despicable organization and that its “report” is not to be taken seriously.  Yet this isn’t, alas, a sane world.  Issued only a few days ago, the “report” has already been embraced by the international media, and the formerly obscure Hope Not Hate is suddenly being treated as if it were a definitive source of objective information.

Pages: 1 2

  • truebearing

    "Yes We Can", "Hope and Change", "Hope Not Hate"….all are meaningless phrases that are intentionally disconnected from any clear purpose. Yes we can what? Go bankrupt and end up like Greece? Hope for what, specifically, and what changes are we talking about? Hope for what? Hate who? These are intentionally vague because without specific meaning the critical mind finds nothing to reject and the subconcious mind accepts the message, meaningless or not. This is part of the Left's use of linguistic sleight of hand to manipulate the weak-minded. Political correctness is linguistic tyranny and the Left has learned to use these tactics to suspend critical thinking. If you object, you are excommunicated by the Humanist Church.

  • truebearing

    There are those who made the case that Obama used neural linguistic programming and other mass hypnosis techniques to get elected in 2008. Linguistic tricks to bypass the rational rejection of ideas are the tools of tyrants, as Hitler so adroitly demonstrated, but the techniques have gotten more sophisticated and the media more powerful.
    If the framers of the constitution were writing it today, they would be concerned not about separation of church and state, but of media and state. The combination of mind control linguistics and control of the media is insidious, to put it mildly. "Islamophobia" is yet another linguistic manipulation of human psychology by the enemies of truth.

    • StephenD

      Truebearing, what you say reminds me of an encounter I had with a retired school teacher one afternoon. She asked for whom I was voting (between McCain and Obama) and I said I'll go with McCain, though not enthusiastically. To my utter amazement, she leans back, fluttering her eyelashes and with a longing in her quivering voice and while clasping her hands in front of her heart says, "I'm an Obama girl." It was…disgusting! It seemed to me she was possessed. She seemed brainwashed. Like a school girl fawning over a teen idol. This from an educated woman in her 60's!! The hypothesis that neural linguistic programing was used (on weak minded people), probably isn't far from the mark…it certainly wouldn’t be beneath him to use anything that would serve him would it?

      • truebearing

        The Left has no restraint, no moral compunctions against the use of any tactic. They believe the end justifies the means. That anti-moral principle suspends guilt for the adherent. The Left and Islam both operate according to that ruthless law and only evil can result.

        Since the ultimate goal of the Left is to gain complete control of people, it stands to reason they will employ any effective mind control technique available. Keep in mind that Leftists make up nearly all of the Sociology professors at our universities, and sociology is essentially dedicated to understanding groups of people, and what influences them. The left spends a lot of time learning how to control thought.

      • guest

        The problem is that neuro-linguistic programming is effective not only on weak-minded people but people in general. When the article first appeared online http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_H...

        there was no author attributed but later versions had attribution. If you look for Derren Brown who uses/used NLP in his tv show you will be amazed what people are made to believe..a red car is black, what someone wanted for their birthday, that a car disappeared from view. I feel certain that Obama used the technique. If you research a bit you will find that practitioners are very careful about who they will let learn the techniques as it is very powerful and people are able to be manipulated.

        • manie

          You, truebearing and ur ilk are pure breed pro- Hope not Hate campaign, imagine (neural linguistic programming and other mass hypnosis techniques). If anyone has been using these, its easy to tell, go to any mosque on friday and hear what rings out loudly “hatred against freedom minded nations especially US” Then watch d spillover effect of this neural linguistic programming and other mass hypnosis techniques in action and the resultant bloodthirsty bombings and slayings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mumbai,Bali, Lockerbie, Madrid,Iraq,Algeria and even Nigeria not to mention 9/11. The fact that u guys re rooting for Hope not Hate (At least I know the Mullahs preach it d other way round)else their followers wld not be sending their brothers, children and daughters as human bombs. Truebearing and d rest of you have lost it completely as you failed to convince except to show ur true leanage and affinity which leaves but a sour taste.

  • http://www.newenglishreview.org Esmerelda

    Hope not Hate were a relatively minor group in the UK in allegiance with and largely of the same mind as the Unite Against Facism group that formed in the 90s out of the old Anti Nazi League to combat the political parties of the National Front and the British National Party. Both funded by Trades Unions, and in the case of HnH by the Mirror newspaper and Billy Bragg the millionaire protest singer. When those parties failed to make significant gains politically the funding and kudos that the groups opposing them received was too good to waste and so another bogeyman had to be identified. They chose the rising English Defence League grass roots pressure group. The UAF and HnH had a falling out recently. And the non racist EDL are gaining support rather than waning.
    Therefore something had to be done to keep Nick Lownes' (HnH is his vehicle) profile up.
    This Counter Jihad list is an attempt to do so and give himself an international dimension.

    • Leyther

      EDL are non racist. Don't make me laugh!

  • m smith

    The hope-not-hate report is fine because it has links to all the good websites… a reader of it will end up converted to our side!

    • aspacia

      No, I found it myopic. Frankly, I had no problems with any faith until 9/11 was done in the name of Islam and the ME cheered. If you do not see this ME hate for us, and its discrimination, you are blind.

  • philipsmeeton

    On Terror Island, the political summer camp of AP (Norwegian Workers Party), the AP youth in cooperation with other socialist organisations and al-Fatah (an ally of Hamas) were, the day before the gunman arrived, holding a Boycott Israel rally which the Norwegian Foreign Minister attended.
    They were also playing Gaza Flotilla, break the blockade, games in small boats around the island.
    The Norwegian Prime Minister has also attended the island camp and smilingly received a T-shirt from an al-Fatah youth on which was written « Tear down the wall». The wall that prevents terrorists sneaking into Israel to blow up busloads of Israelis.
    The Norwegian Ambassador to Israel said recently that Israel deserved to be attacked by Hamas but that Norway had done nothing to deserve a terrorist attack. In Norway you are a hero if you hate Israel.

    • manie

      Which is why one shldnt support violence or terrorism of any sort cause what goes around comes around.
      A terror attack anywhere is an affront on all peace loving people of the world.

  • mlcblog

    This is exactly what happened to Michael Savage when he was denied entrance to Britain (and still is). He was thrown into the company of mass murderers and other unsavory characters, all on the strength of his opinions.

  • Guest

    I do not fear Islam. I hate it. There is a difference between fearing a cult and hating it. The is also a difference between hating the person and hating the nasty thing they are involved in.

  • http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00793J38G Frans Groenendijk

    Most important source for Breivik was wikipedia, he was most inspired by Al-Qaeda: that was his example. He even planned beheading of the king and filming it. In his manifesto he explicitly writes about a form of cooperation with Al-Qaeda. Getting them to trust him, he ponders about two possibilities: some 'knight' (meaning himself) would cut of his genitals OR he will kill young people of his own country.

    (The link of my name goes to my ebook-essay 'Islamophobia, Defying the Battle Cry')

  • maria

    All those organizations for Islamic terrorists backed and financed by Liberals/socialists and/or Islamists. Saudi Arabia, our "ally", financed many of those even which is in Israel (Shalom Ahshave, for instance, named itself "peace today" but collaborates with Islamic terrorists). j street is financed and established by George Soros who collaborated with Naziswith. His hands are in Jewish blood . Soros was a main contributor to 2008 BHO campaign as well. Than Obama paid off him giving 2 billion our tax payer money to Brazilian Oil Co. Soros is one of the biggest shareholders of that Co. Non-Muslim Leftists don't want realize that they are used as "useful idiots" and they will be killed by those whom they work for now.

  • dsinc

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/20/ander

    Silje Gloppen, a teacher, said however abhorrent Breivik's views, lessons needed to be learned from him. "Norwegians and, I believe, the rest of the world have to consider the possibility that this man is speaking the truth when he says he believes our 'Norwegian culture and ethnicity' is threatened by multiculturalism," she said.

  • Ghostwriter

    I agree with much of this article. Breivik was a bloodthirsty lunatic who killed people simply because he wanted to. It's a shame that he's going to be used to silence those who are against jihad.

  • Havoc29

    Hey, how can I get on this list? To be on a list decried by the left as Islamophobes would be a badge of honor!

  • curmudgeon

    definition: far right: anything that isnt extreme left. when the enemies of civilization call you "far right" take it as a compliment. it means you arent a foaming at the mouth mad dog traitor to mankind.

  • dave

    This does not bode well I'm afraid. I live in London where it is hard enough not to be called all sorts of 'insults' like 'Zionist' 'Racist' "far Right' etc, just for questioning Islam or the Left wings antics over the last 40 years. I have lost many 'friends' because I am no longer part of that brainwashed generation, people like David Horowitz, Ali Sina, Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish have helped me see the other side and I realize how much of a foot soldier for the left I was.

  • dave

    Anyway, I am seriously worried now that just as the debate was getting started, Brevik has managed to end it with his psychotic, evil actions. Maybe we should demand that Islam be therefore equally discredited and given the same treatment, for example, the way the Tolouse killer was excused because of 'Israel' or 'foreign policy' needs to be repeatedly pointed out. Moreover, whenever there has been a 9/11 or 7/7, the west self flaggelates and wants to know 'why' and what is it 'we have done' to facilitate such anger. The irony is that if we don't address issues such as multi culturalism and social cohesion and Islamic supremacy, nutters like Brevik will take it upon themselves to do something, and yet with Islam, it really has nothing to do with our actions as it is in their religion. Hopefully we can point this out to people and force a more honest debate about Islam than exists at present.

  • okbman

    My only question is, your list of anti-jihadis it seems to have overlooked Pamela Geller ,, why? She is America's #1 Anti-Jihadist in my book.
    Great piece of work, keep it up!

  • Ørjan, Oslo

    And while good people are being smeared, real extremists are treated as neutral experts. In Norway the old DFLP terrorist Lars Gule is frequently used as an expert on extremism and 'islamophobia' by the media during the Breivik trial. Lars Gule joined DFLP in 1977 only three years after the Ma'alot massacre, where Israeli school children were slaughtered, just as on Utøya. Norways dhimmi foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre calls Gule 'one of Norway's most important intellectuals'. God help us.

    Thank you for your good work, Bruce. I'm sorry for the way you have been treated by the media in Norway.

  • Nullius in Verba

    Sadly I have to agree with Dave… Things do not look good.

    France is turning Left again, and today the Dutch minority government has gotten into a lot of trouble, after what appears to be a fallout between Wilder's PVV and CDA (a left-leaning, so-called 'Christian' party). But it could very well turn out to be political sabotage by CDA, since the Freedom Party hasn't been performing so well in the polling lately due to variety of reasons. If we would lose both France and Holland at the same time, that would be worse than bad, it would be disastrous. Not that things are hunky dory right now. England, however, seems to me to be a case that is already lost…

    Anyway, looking at the Breivik case you cannot help but wonder how utterly blind and misguided these people really are. I've my own thoughts about the underlying causes and what drives them, but that is too long to go into right now. Yet even they must notice (in one of their more reflective moments) the ironies that keep piling up. To name but a few:

    1) If the words of a few intellectuals (or Jihad Critics) – who actually do not condone violence in any form – can be said to "cause violence" in this way, then what must we think about all those imams and so-called 'religious authorities' that day-in-day-out, and throughout the whole Muslim world, not only encourage but in effect sanctify the worst of human behaviour: from lying and stoning to gay-bashing and infidel-killing, and from female segregation and mutilation to death for apostasy, to name but a few instances. Not to mention the words of endless violence enshrined in their tomb, the Qur'an, or in their unholy legal system. So if Breivik’s act of wanton destruction is the result of words written by peaceful Jihad Critics, then the evil perpetrated by Muslim terrorists must be the rotten fruits of the open sewage system that is Islam. Breivik even gave some hints – for those Norwegians who weren't yet completely brain dead – from where he got his real inspiration…
    http://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/1222850-breiv

    *The 1993 WTC bombing was of course also an act of Islamic terror, and even with Timothy McVeigh there appeared to be an Arab-Islamic connection…

    2) The Left supposedly fights the Right because they feel people on the Right want to 'exclude', 'marginalize', 'stigmatize', and 'demonize' so-called minorities (Islam has about 1.3 billion people). This is ironic because if the Left really felt that these kind of acts were immoral and reprehensible then why would it suddenly be ok for the Left to try and exclude, marginalize, stigmatize, and demonize the Right? Some examples: the Left often claims that religious people (Evangelicals or Catholics) are backward, primitive, and dangerous. That the Right is warmongering and inherently evil and hateful, or controlled by the "Israeli Lobby". And most ironic and self-contradictory of all: that people on the Right exclude, discriminate, marginalize, stigmatize, and demonize. Often Europeans claim Americans are stupid and vice versa.

    3) However, it is doubly ironic, because if the Left really cared about these things (discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, marginalization, etc.) then how could they possibly tolerate Islam? So when the Left says it won't tolerate the intolerant (in regard to the Right), it actually says: we won't tolerate people (on the Right) who don't tolerate the intolerant (Islam).

    4) But it gets even more bizarre, because the inadvertent effect of this contradictory stance, is that liberal societies grow more and more conservative by the day, due to the influx of Islam. Yet, as we all know, Islam isn't simply 'conservative' in the way the Left uses that label when indiscriminately grouping ninety percent of the world together (something btw that the Left absolutely forbids others to do) – but conservative in the worst possible way imaginable.
    http://www.onislam.net/english/news/europe/456611

    So by keeping our societies open and tolerant for everything and everyone – including Islam – the Left is actually destroying or slowly eroding that openness and toleration. Conversely, it is precisely this open and free society that the Right is trying so far to safe and defend, by not tolerating the intolerable (Islamic practices) – for which they are fought by the Left. Of course one of the problem is, that progressive liberals don’t seem to have any more grounds on which to defend the setting of limits, since the 60s all authority is by definition bad. Limits only curtail endless growth and development i.e. they are evil. The result is what I call the postmodern "Crisis of Legitimacy" (as described by Charles Murray in "Coming Apart").

  • Nullius in Verba

    "Hope Not Hate" and all those other vague terms and empty slogans, actually capture most faithfully Leftist ideology, namely: Radical Openness. The Left thinks that being open for everything and everyone is a sign of strength and fearlessness. They compare it to the attitude of children, who in their innocence and purity embrace the world as it is, with all its faults and blemishes. This highly romantic and idealized life-affirming attitude they contrast with hate, which in turn they automatically equate with fear, violence, exclusion, limitation, separation, distinction, etc. That is, everything, every possible dichotomy (right/wrong, good/evil, etc.) or hierarchy that puts a real or imagined distance between things, is evil.

    This ideology forms the moral-baseline for most Hollywood productions nowadays. However, contrary to what is generally accepted on the Left, these ideas of openness and toleration are actually shared by people on the Right, except without the blinding radicalism. Because you can only hope to mature and excel in life if you are willing to make distinctions, that is, if you don't swallow or take everything at face value. Discernment – which is essential for survival – implies criteria of selection, which in turn implies 'discrimination', which implies 'preferences and preconceptions', etc. It is basically a never-ending feed-back loop.

    We need to keep testing our presumptions via processes of trial and error and adjust them when they are wrong, for we need valid grounds in order to make fair judgments. We also need to be guided by notions of truth, justice, and freedom – especially freedom of speech and conscience – so as not to be blinded by an ideology that demands obedience to a ‘doctrine of openness’ that doesn’t allow one to say “no”, or discern friend from enemy. The same goes for the setting of limits and boundaries, they are a necessary evil, but you simply can’t live together without rules – so long as we remain our own rulers. Otherwise we will indeed turn into babies: spoon-fed and completely helpless and blind to our surroundings.

  • martienpennings

    Making islam-critics responsible for the deeds Breivik is like making Churchill responsible for the deeds of Hitler.

  • Nullius in Verba

    [CORRECTED & REWORKED]

    Sadly, I have to agree with Dave… Things do not look good.

    France is turning Left again it seems, and today the Dutch minority government has run into a lot of trouble, after what appears to be a fallout between Geert Wilders’ PVV and CDA (a left-leaning, so-called 'Christian' party). But it could very well turn out to be political sabotage by CDA, since the Freedom Party hasn't been performing so well in the polls lately, due to a variety of reasons. If we lost both France and Holland at the same time, it would be worse than bad, it would be disastrous. Not that things are hunky dory right now. England, however, seems to me to be a case that is already lost…

    Anyway, looking at the Breivik case you cannot help but wonder how utterly blind and misguided these people really are. I've got my own thoughts about the underlying causes and what drives them, but that is too long to get into now. Yet even they must notice (in one of their more reflective moments) the ironies that just keep piling up. To name but a few:

    Irony 1) If the words of a few intellectuals (Jihad Critics) – who actually do not condone violence in any shape or form – can be said to "cause violence" in this way, then what must we think about all those imams and so-called 'religious authorities' that day-in-day-out, and throughout the whole Muslim world, not only encourage but in effect sanctify the worst of human behaviour: from lying and stoning to gay-bashing and infidel-killing, and from female segregation and mutilation to death for apostasy, to name but a few instances. Not to mention the words of violence enshrined in their tomb, the Qur'an, and in their unholy legal system. Will the Left be consistent and ban Islam? I don’t think so. And so, if Breivik’s act of wanton destruction is the result of words written by (peaceful) Jihad Critics, then by the same logic, the endless evil perpetrated by Muslim terrorists can only be the fruits of the open sewage system that is Islam. Breivik even gave some hints – to those Norwegians who aren't yet completely braindead – as to where he got his real inspiration from: http://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/1222850-breiv
    (See Link: the 1993 WTC bombing was of course also an act of Islamic terror, and even with Timothy McVeigh there appeared to be an Arab-Islamic connection, albeit a weak one)

    Irony 2) The Left attacks the Right because it says the Right ‘excludes’, ‘generalizes’, 'marginalizes', 'stigmatizes', ‘discriminates’ and 'demonizes' so-called minorities (Islam has about 1.3 billion people). This is ironic because if the Left really felt these kind of acts were immoral and reprehensible then why would it employ these same tactics when it attacks the Right? That is, when the Left tries to ‘exclude’, ‘generalize’, ‘marginalize’, ‘stigmatize’, ‘discriminates’, and ‘demonize’ the Right? For example: Leftists often claim that religious people (like Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox Jews) are backward, primitive, and dangerous. They claim that the Right is warmongering, inherently evil and hateful, and often controlled by shadowy agencies, like the "Israeli Lobby". However, most ironic (and self-contradictory) of all of course, would be the notion that only people on the Right ‘exclude’, ‘generalize’, ‘discriminate’, ‘marginalize’, ‘stigmatize’, and ‘demonize’.

    Irony 3) However, it is doubly ironic, because if the Left really cared about things such as ‘exclusion’, generalization’, ‘marginalization’, ‘stigmatization’, ‘discrimination’, and ‘demonization’ then how could it possibly tolerate a religion such as Islam? In other words, when the Left says “it won't tolerate the intolerant” with regard to the Right, it actually says: “it won't tolerate people on the Right, who don't tolerate the intolerant [i.e. Islam]”.

    Irony 4) But it gets even more bizarre and mindboggling, because the inadvertent effect of these self-contradictory stances, is that liberal societies grow more and more ‘conservative’ by the day (due to the influx of Islam and its practices). Yet, as we all know, Islam isn't simply ‘conservative’ in any conventional sense of the term. That is, in the way the Left uses that label to indiscriminately group together and shove aside about 90% of the world population (which, by the way, is yet another example of gross generalization and ignorance on the side of the Left). For Islam’s ‘conservatism’ is in a league of its own. http://www.onislam.net/english/news/europe/456611

  • Nullius in Verba

    [CORRECTED & REWORKED]

    And so, by keeping our societies ‘open and tolerant’ for everything and everyone – including Islam – the Left is actually destroying that openness and toleration. Yet, it is exactly this open and free society that the Right is so desperately trying to save and protect, by “not tolerating the intolerable” (Islamic practices) – for which they are attacked by the Left. Of course one of the big problems is, that progressive liberals don’t seem to have grounds anymore on which to defend the setting of limits or boundaries, because since the 60’s all ‘authority’ is by definition bad. After all, limits only curtail growth and development, they control/manipulate and therefore are evil. The result of all this, is what I call the postmodern "crisis of legitimacy" (as described in detail by Charles Murray in "Coming Apart").

    "Hope Not Hate" and all those other vague terms and empty slogans, actually capture most faithfully Leftist ideology, namely: Radical Openness. The Left thinks that being open for everything and everyone, all the time, is a sign of strength and fearlessness. They sometimes compare it to the attitude of children, who in their innocence and purity embrace the world (or ‘other’) as it is, with all its faults and blemishes. This hopelessly romantic and highly idealized life-affirming attitude they contrast with hate, which in turn they automatically equate with fear, selfishness, violence, tribalism, exclusion, limitation, separation, distinction, etc. That is, everything – every possible dichotomy (right/wrong, good/evil) or hierarchy – that puts a real or imagined distance between things, is on this account evil, and must be fought or ‘deconstructed’ from within.

    This ideology forms the moral-baseline of most Hollywood productions nowadays. However, contrary to what is generally accepted on the Left, ideas of openness and toleration are actually shared by people on the Right, not only that, they are core values. Except they come without this blinding radicalism. Because in the end, you can only hope to mature and excel in life if you are willing to make distinctions, that is: if you don't swallow or take everything at face value. Discernment – which is essential for survival – implies criteria of selection, which in turn implies 'discrimination', which implies 'preferences and preconceptions', etc. Life is basically a never-ending feed-back loop.

    Of course we need to stay open for new evidence and keep testing our presumptions via processes of trial and error and adjust whenever they are wrong, for we need valid grounds in order to make fair judgments. But we also need to be guided by notions of truth, justice, and freedom – especially freedom of speech and conscience – so as not to be blinded by an ideology that demands obedience to a ‘doctrine of openness’ that doesn’t allow anyone to say “no” or “stop”, or to discern friend from foe. The same goes for the setting of limits and boundaries, they are a necessary evil, but you simply can’t live together without them – as long as we remain our own rulers. Otherwise we will indeed turn into babies: spoon-fed and completely helpless and blind to our surroundings.

  • Nullius in Verba

    [CORRECTED & REWORKED]

    I think, however, that Breivik's motivations are quite sinister.

    On the one hand, due to his narcissism + inferiority complex, he wants his moment to shine. Hence his ‘manifesto’ and the way he carries and portrays himself. In his own twisted way, he wants to be the center of attention, the focal point or epicenter of a 'new movement', his so-called ‘Knight Templar’ order.

    On the other hand, he obviously doesn't believe in democracy or peaceful solutions, for he is a figure of strife and (self-)destruction, i.e. a mirror-image of the bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists he is supposedly fighting. Therefore, he wants to implicate all reasonable and constructive Islam-critics, who chose to combat the dangers of Islam with words and ideas. Because by helping the Left criminalize these critics (and their ideas) on mainly the Right side (even though these days you are Right by default if you dare criticize Islam) Breivik leaves only one option open: violence (i.e. extreme right will take over).

    By getting criticism of Islam outlawed, Breivik will have effectively sabotaged all further communication efforts between Right and Left – not that they have been very successful so far – making his wished for ‘revolution' all the more likely (with, of course, himself as self-styled ‘martyr’). Then the Left would seal itself off completely from all further argumentation and/or evidence. Simultaneously, Breivik’s courtroom-action will expose the Left's shared desire with Islam to silence all critics (a desire they share, albeit for different reasons). Thereby 'proving' his central thesis, that the Left and Islam work hand in hand.

    If Breivik (and others like him) were to succeed in letting everything go to hell in a handbag, then Europe would be lost… It is already teetering on the brink, but then it would slowly but surely spiral into chaos. It would be an ugly and bloody ‘free for all’, where mutual suspicion will reign supreme and only the merciless, the conniving, and the powerful would win out. It would be an economic, moral, and political disaster and would signal the total breakdown of law and order. It would, in other words, be back to the 1930’s and 40’s.

    On the plus side, if you are rich and responsible (for this mess) you could simply bailout and come back in 40 years time to start all over again…

  • Nullius in Verba

    ps: sorry, I do not mean to spam!

  • Schlomotion

    Brilliant! I can't wait to donate to these guys. Maybe they need a top editor.

  • JoshD

    Notice their page on racism doesn't include white victims when it whites are far more likely to be victim of interracial violence? they brainwash us believing that it's whites who are the ones going around beating people to death with hammers. Expect nothing but double standards from these anti-racists, there's a good reason they say anti-racists are anti-white.

  • LoveFreedom

    Great Wall, this link to "Islam 101" provides a thorough, but concise history of Mahomet and the destruction he commanded to be unleashed on the entire world. I earnestly suggest that every Freedom-loving person read and re-read it to understand the existential threat that the core, foundational, fundamental teachings of Islam are to everyone/everywhere. http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html