Anders Breivik - warrior against... Islam free speech

Anders Breivik - a man with anti-Islam views, decided to kill many people. Not Muslims - but the youth wing of the Norwegian Labour Party, who he regarded as the enablers of multiculturalism... Labour Party youth with placards like this...

And imitating flotillas to Gaza, like this

Hate speech, to some? You bet...

Yet surely nobody in their right minds, in a democratic Western society, would deny these youngsters the rights to display their viewpoints? Just as nobody would see them as anything other than young people of a high calibre and potential, contributing to discourse in a democratic state. And many may yet have "changed sides", following in the footsteps of the likes of Paul Dacre, the editor of the UK's Daily Mail. In fact, if you look at the history of "right-wingers" in Europe and North America, you will find many former leftists - who may have wanted to take part in such a youth camp, at some stage in their life.

All this is key to a democratic society. And what Breivik wanted to destroy. While personally, I'm not convinced as to why Breivik did what he did, some theories are that he wanted to scare people away from attending left-wing camps. Whatever the reason, he did not respect his opponents' right to a democratic viewpoint - the bedrock of a democratic society...

Recently, he is not the only individual to have shown such a lack of respect for freedom of speech...

Dutch and Austrian judges have been all to happy to also join in this "crusade", with Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff being dragged through the courts, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff forced to pay a fine of 480 Euros for the "crime" of referring to the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a paedophile - for having sex with Aisha when she was 9, and he was a fifty-something... yet it was Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who had to make a statement distancing herself from Anders Breivik!

Moreover, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined forces with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to attempt to compel UN members “to take concrete steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”... surely nothing wrong with that?

Well, that will depend on what those in charge would consider to be "negative stereotyping"... The bottom line - from resolutions such as this to trials like those of Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff is a very short path. Which is why documents such as the First Amendment to the US constitution are vital to our societies - societies in which both the critics of Islam and the Norwegian Labour Party Youth can freely express their viewpoints. Anything else - and we're well on the road to a totalitarian state.

So, when it comes down to the philosophy inspiring the massacre, who is Anders Breivik closer to? And who should be distancing themselves from his actions? Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff? Or Hillary Clinton?

 Warriors against freedom

Yes, there is a worrying trend happening in Europe right now. But it is not the trend of opposition to Islam - something that has been in existence since the days of Winston Churchill, and long before... rather, it is the trend of an increasing lack of respect for freedom of speech that is the biggest danger to the foundations of our society. A trend that Anders Breivik fully embraced. But one that is almost fully ignored by our media...

"We are all bin Laden" - in Tahrir Square

From the dreaming idealism of a democratic revolution...



To cries of "We are all Osama bin Laden", and the Muslim Brotherhood dominating Tahrir Square...



While all this may be shocking to those viewing mainstream media, Jihadwatch readers should not be the least bit surprised...

H/T  Gates of Vienna

An Islamic-free state

Both critics of Islam, and apostates from Islam are currently faced with dangers – not only in Muslim countries – but increasingly in non-Islamic countries, where followers of the Religion of Peace seeking to silence its critics have more and more co-religionists, among which to disguise themselves... In order for such people to have their safety ensured, a nation should come into existence where such targets for “Islamic extremists” are not threatened... since any Islamic community can play host to such “extremists” (and most Islamic communities around the world likely have their fare share of such extremists), such a nation should not contain Muslims – or contain them in such a small number that they are not a threat – not even on the level of Eastern Europe or South America today – but perhaps a similar number to the amount of Muslims in England or Germany in the 19^th Century... But what would such a nation look like? Here are some attributes which would be essential to such a state:

1. Secure in natural resources – the state should either be self-sufficient in these, or have their supply ensured by friendly states, preferably in close proximity.
2. Friendly neighbours – while the state's neighbours need not limit Islam like the state concerned, they should be on friendly terms with the state, to ensure trade and security.
3. International relations – the international clout of the nation should be high enough to ensure it is not “swept aside” and has friends it can rely on, but also not so large that exposing itself to a large amount of international trade & relations becomes necessary.
4. A homogeneous population – a lack of fault lines (in terms of race, religion, class or other factors) will ensure that there is no friction within the state for Islam to exploit.
5. A strong economy – the greater the size of the economy and trade with non-Islamic trades – the less chance of any sanctions coming to fruition.
6. Not too small, not too large – the country should be large enough to have a substantial army it can call on if needed, however if it is too large, the country can become difficult to manage (such as Russia), or rely on too many imports of resources (such as France, Germany or Britain). Therefore it should not be as large as those countries.
7. Secure from immigration – the country should be secure from attempts to infiltrate it from outside, by Muslim immigrants (and others with different priorities on their mind).
8. Secure government – The country should offer secure protection to apostates and critics of Islam for the long-term – these should not depend on the wishes of the next 4-year-term government. Therefore the characteristics of the country should be defined in its constitution, or the country should have a government not liable to change (ie NOT a democracy)
9. Freedom of speech – The country's citizens should not be ashamed of their point of view – and be proud to say it – even if they're to be seen as “Loons”, “backward”, “xenophobic” or anything else... in other words, a tolerance for freedom of speech = an absolute intolerance of political correctness! Allowing such a political correctness to creep in will mean the country risks once again becoming susceptible to Islamisation in the long run.

Were such a country to exist, critics of Islam and other targets of Islamists would not need to walk with 24-hour protection – they could instead live life like normal citizens, enabling them much greater freedom - and time to concentrate on the real priorities... The country could also – through lobby groups, government efforts, and sympathisers abroad, attempt to influence the policies of other countries. Much like Islam is (likely) influencing Western governments today...

Alas, such a state is currently a long way away... but perhaps there may be candidates, exhibiting some similarities?