I have had several requests that I write in English instead and that I summarize what I wrote yesterday. I will gladly do so. Yesterday I revealed that the terrorist Breivik WAS NO LONE ASSASSIN. He acted as an integrated part of the most radical parts of the global anti-islamization movement.
I showed in the article yesterday that Breivik, as well as his friends and allies in the anti-islamizationmovement of Norway believes that Europe is in war, a war against islam.
Islam is seen by them as an oppressive force, similar to the nazis in the Second world war and in a similar way as the nazis ockupied lare parts of Europe in WW2, the muslims have ockupied large parts of Europe today and is committing a HOLOCAUST against the ”natives”, i.e. the ”europeans”.
The radical antiislamizationmovement in Norway view themselves as the resistancemovement that is in WAR against the nazi/islam ockupation and against the current quisling-governments.
I showed that the Laborparty in Norway, Arbejderpartiet, is the main target for this war, as it is commonly seen by these ”antiislamists” as ”worse than the Quslingparty in the WW2”.
If you view the world such, the massmurder Breivik committed against Laborparty Youth suddenly becomes understandable. He believed that they were a part of a quislingparty, collaborating with nazis in an ONGOING GENOCIDE against norwegians.
However absurd that sound there are people that TRULY believe that the world is in war.
And the Norwegian movement is only a tiny part of a global movement that shares the worldview of Breivik and the Norwegian radical antiislamists.
Read the quotes from Breivik and the antisislamists here! (in Swedish)
The worldview of Breivik
Not all antiislamists would go so far as Breivik. But if you spread the idea that the world is in war and that a holocaust is going on at the moment, you will have some people, and groups, that would take up what they view as ”armed resistance” against the so called ”holocaust”, as Breivik did.
Lets look at his worldview.
The Mother Jones blog is quoting Breivik:
Breivik, in one post, argues that a ”moderate” Muslim is like a ”moderate” Nazi:
And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called ”moderate Muslims”. There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they’re still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?….For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies. Not all Muslims, Nazis and Marxists are conservative, most are moderate. But does it matter? A moderate Nazi might, after having experienced fraud, choose to be conservative. A moderate Muslim can, after being refused to enter a club, be conservative, etc.
He denounces multiculturalism:
Tell me one country where Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims without the Jihad
…How many thousands of new Europeans must die, how many one hundred thousand European women should be raped, millions robbed and tractor discarded before you understand that multiculturalism + Islam does not work?
On hos facebook page Breivik saya that he likes Max Manus. That is crucial. Max Manus was a WW2 hero that fought the nazis. With this he reveleas that he too views himself as a new Max Manus fighting the ”new nazis”…
His ”manifest” (1500 pages) reveals more about his worldview.
islam
The current internationalist elites (cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists, globalists) are the Nazis of our age and deliberately collaborating with the Muslims. They are the Quislings who are trying to transfer political powers from our sovereign nations to a foreign political entity – the EUSSR/UN…
islam and Sweden
The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with repressive and violent Islamic organisations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and ideologies in human history, which between themselves have killed more than 150 million people in a few generations. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the world.
Now they forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, another organisation with close ideological ties to the Fascist and Nazi movements. At a time when native Swedes are raped, stabbed, killed and chased out[35] of their homes by Muslim gangs, the Social Democrats agree to continue allowing Muslims to colonise the country in exchange for their votes. In the old days this would be called treason. Now it’s called tolerance. It’s remarkable how similar the two concepts have become. Two Fascist-inspired movements cooperate on exploiting and abusing the native population of a country, force them fund and applaud their own colonisation and denounce them as bigots, racists and Fascists if they resist. The strategy is as brilliant as it is evil.
Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can stab their own people in the back, ally themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness?
Native rights
The difference between other indigenous rights movements and the European indigenous rights movements is that we have not in any way been defeated militarily. The European armed indigenous rights movements/resistance movements are just starting to emerge and this will continue in the coming decades. The armed fight for our survival lies ahead of us.
The outcome of the Aboriginal and Native American struggle established a crystal clear precedence which dictates that the indigenous peoples of a specific territory have undisputed exclusive rights in their own lands. If this is the case for Aborigines in Australia and Native Americans in the US, shouldn’t that be the case for Europeans in Europe as well? The fact that the cultural Marxists, anti-nationalist humanists and globalists outright refuse us the same basic human rights prove without a doubt that THEY are in fact the racists, that they are the fascists and Nazis of our time…
We are no more terrorists than the indigenous Brits who fought against the imperialistic Roman invaders, or the Americans who fought against English rule. We are no more terrorists than Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse or Chief Gall who fought for their people against the imperialist General Armstrong Custer. Our struggle will be a lot easier if European nationalist (indigenous rights activists) use smart and defusing arguments instead of using supremacist arguments which can be efficiently squashed through psychological warfare propaganda or by anti-Nazi policies. Yes, we are fighting the imperialistic Marxist doctrines. The only difference is now, WE are the Sitting Bulls, Crazy Horses and Chief Galls and the imperialistic Custer’s of our time is called Barroso, Blair, Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy…
The most pragmatical way to move forward is to play the victim card in combination with cruel methods of armed resistance. We must literally focus all our efforts at creating an optimal environment for recruitment. This can only be done if we manage to cripple all Western European economies through financially crippling sabotage operations and cynical shock attacks which will devastate the stock markets and severely undermine the Euro, causing a favourable climate for recruitment….
So ironically, failing to take action now and deport the Muslims will result in a scenario where Muslims will be in majority. The only way we can then prevent Sharia law from being implemented as the only standard will be to suppress the Muslim majority through military force just like Turkey is doing now. In other words, the humanists reluctance to support deportation of Muslims today are therefore contributing to destroy our very democracies. Because the end result, due to their reluctance to act, will be a Turkey style dictatorship/fascism. I’m a strong defender of democracy and therefore cannot support this fascist approach. We, the cultural conservative and anti-fascists of Europe must therefore do everything possible to defend democracy and freedom and prevent a fascist dictatorship by seizing power and enforce a harsh but just democracy. This can only be accomplished by overthrowing the current Western European multiculturalist regimes by seizing power through armed resistance and a military coup when the time is right. This is the only way to safeguard democracy long term. Sure, it will be bloody. But if democracy, our homelands and people aren’t worth certain sacrifices then what is?
I think this is enough tho show that Breivik viewed himself as fighting the ”new nazis”…
International network
Yesterday I showed that there is a network of people that shares his worldview in Norway today. There are plenty of international groups that shares this idea.
I will write more about this network i the coming days. Until then look at what the blogger warincontext writes:
Breivik is much more specific in identifying the sources from whom he takes his own ideological direction: Robert Spencer, Fjordman, Atlas [Pamela Geller], Analekta [Informatics], Gates of Vienna, The Brussels Journal, and The Religion of Peace.
These are the preeminent voices promoting fear and hatred of Islam across Europe and America. But they also form — at least in Breivik’s mind — the “epicenter” of “political analysis” on the threat posed to cultural conservatives by multiculturalism in Europe and America. He recommends Fjordman’s book, “Defeating Eurabia,” as “the perfect Christmas gift for family and friends.”
Do any of the leaders of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and Stop Islamization of Europe(SIOE) advocate that their “freedom fighters” should adopt violent tactics such as those employed by Breivik? Perhaps not. Indeed, I have little doubt that in the coming days we will hear many vociferous disavowals of their having any association with the Norwegian. But have no doubt, while they might have a sincere revulsion for Breivik’s actions, they cannot so easily disassociate themselves from the ideas that drove him to murder almost a hundred innocent people.
Two years ago, Breivik called on fellow Norwegians to form a youth action group “that represents our ideological platform (anti-racist but critical of multiculturalism / Islamization etc).” He saw the group developing as part of Stop Islamization of Europe or as a new group that would model itself on SIOE and the English Defense League.
“For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ[ently]. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies,” Breivik writes. There is a whiff of the Bush doctrine here — that we should not differentiate between terrorists and those who harbor them. There’s also a hint of Bin Laden’s idea of the near enemy and the far enemy.
Breivik argues that cultural conservatives should not identify their main opponents as Jihadists, but instead should focus their attention on those he regards as the “facilitators” of Jihadists, namely, the proponents of multiculturalism. Hence his vehement opposition to Norway’s Labour Party and its leader, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
Those in the anti-Islam movement who now want to distance themselves from Breivik will proclaim that they are opponents of hatred and maybe that’s true — but that’s how he sees himself too: as a man dedicating his life to combating the “hate ideologies.”
As the last decade has demonstrated, whether it’s on the level of governments or individuals, those who take up a banner in the name of a crusade against hatred have a surprising willingness to employ violence in pursuit of that goal.
hus we have a very strange situation. On one hand we have the militant islamistic terrorists, like Al Quaida, that believe that they are in war against the ”west”(that they collectively view as the ”enemy”) and on the other side we have the ”antiislamization” networks of the west that similarly believe that the west is in war against islam, and that all muslims are collectively ”guilty” and should be viewed as the enemy.
Thus we have a situation where extreme islamistic groups view themselves as fighters in war, and where extreme antiislamistic groups view themselves in a similar way. Both view the enemy as a collective. The extreme islamists view the west as evil, and thus all westerners too, and the extreme antiislamist view all muslims as evil.
Not all radical islamists are murderers, neither are all radical antiislamists murderers. But all those that with the use of generalization claim that islam is ”nazi” and that thus muslims are nazis, are participating in the spread of HATRED! A hatred that in the end creates situations like 9/11 and the attacks by Breivik!
********
Isak Nygren fick också manifestet och har bloggat om det.
Polarisering är farligt, det gör att vi inte ser nyanser.
Demokrati 
