 |
| Is this the zenith of our civilization? |
The following is Israel Shamir's personal take - but it contains much of interest and further informs us of who this Neo Con killer is.
The following is an extract from a recent article by Israel Shamir (source):
Why did he do it? We can answer the question: the massacre was essentially a publicity stunt for the killer’s opus magnum, 1500 pages of compendium “2083”. This is not a great achievement of human spirit, rather a copy-paste hotchpotch of Neocon writings on Islam and violent anticommunism. However, it deserves our study just because so many people were killed in order to make us read it. If this Breiwick was a Herostratus, let us see why he burned down the temple of so many lives. Moreover, we should see where he was wrong.
2083 reveals a new vicious political virus designed in genetic engineering labs of the Neocon think-tanks. For many years it was thought that a Nazi should hate Jews and befriend Muslims, because this was the case with Hitler’s Nazism. A Nazi was not supposed to hate Commies because Communism was a similar totalitarian ideology according to Karl Popper and George Bush. A Neo-Nazi should love Adolf Hitler and upheld racism.
Long labour of Jewish ideologists connected to Neocons succeeded to reverse the attitudes. Today we have a whole string of parties and movements which connect far-right ideas with sympathy to Jews, tolerance of gays, hate of Islam. The writer of 2083, too, is pro-Jews, pro-gays, violently anti-Muslim and anti-Communist. He is nearest to Pim Fortuyn, the assassinated Dutch far-right Judeophile gay politician. He marched with EDL, a British strongly pro-Jewish anti-Muslim militancy.
Breivik’s 2083 is heavily influenced by far-right Neocon Jewish writing. As is often the case with copy-paste compilations, it is difficult to fully separate words of the compiler and those of compiled authors. If it ever will be published, probably copyright of David Horowitz and Bat Yeor, Daniel Pipes and Andrew Bostom should embellish its page three. These writers inspired him to commit his mass murder.
Just a few hours before the attack, Gilad Atzmon wrote, Joseph Klein published in the FrontPage magazine an article entitled "The Quislings of Norway," (here) with additional incitement to murder. Klein wrote: “The infamous Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, must be applauding in his grave… Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.”
These are fighting words, and Breitvik heeded them while loading his guns. 2083 proves these sources. Quotes from Frontpage of David Horowitz and its authors take hundreds of pages. Bernard Lewis has a place of honour. The notorious Bat Yeor, an Egyptian Jewish woman living in Switzerland, who coined the term “Eurabia” (an alleged conspiracy to subjugate Europe to Arabs) and did much to promote fear of Islam, corresponded with the killer, and she “kindly” advised him and sent him her unpublished texts. She is the only person named in his Declaration of European Independence, and her advice the newly independent Europeans should follow, according to Bat Yeor.
Robert Spenser, a sidekick of David Horowitz of Jihad Watch is another great love of the killer, and so is an American Zionist, Andrew G. Bostom, self-proclaimed expert on “Islamic anti-Semitism”. Daniel Pipes is presented with his thesis that “The Palestinian phenomenon was created with the intention to justify Jihad”. Melanie Phillips, the British far-right Zionist and a friend of the BNP leader, and other pro-fascist Islam-haters are also present. (Funnily, these guys repeatedly condemned me for my “anti-Semitism”)
Politically, the killer’s sympathies lie with “the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe.” Economically, he preferred Milton Friedman, disliked taxes, was against welfare system.
He hated Palestinians, and speaks of “Palestinian terrorist jihad”. Like every good Zionist he ranted: “Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them… he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.” Among the first things the independent Europeans should do is to stop any assistance to the Palestinians.
For Breivik, like for his Jewish teachers, Adolf Hitler is ultimate evil. He accepted and upheld antiracism, at least for tactical reasons. His dislike of multiculturalism is culture, nor race-based. He was not a racist: he killed blue-eyed Norwegians as well as their brown guests. He even hated David Duke – for being anti-Jewish. His hatred to Islam is not limited to borders of Norway, or Europe – like Neocons, he hated Muslims wherever they are to be found.
He spends many pages on describing evils of Turkey including massacres of Armenians, Greeks and Kurds. There is a long chapter on modern history of Lebanon, where curiously Israeli wars are missing, and the troubles of the country are presented via Christian/Muslim division. His favourite historical hero is Vlad the Impaler, Romanian prince better known as Count Dracula.
His logic is primitive and faulty: “If all ethnical groups and all cultures are equal, why is it black Africans, Afro-Caribbean blacks, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans want to abandon their own lands en masse to live in the lands of the West?”
A simple explanation, “because the West constantly robbed and robs their countries” does not occur to Breivik.
He asks: “if we're all truly equal, why does the rest of the world want to live the Western lifestyle, a lifestyle created in the main by white people? Just why exactly, do they want to be part of capitalism, run businesses, work for the white man's industries, claim the white man's welfare and buy and use goods created by the creativity and ingenuity of Western - white - people?”
The correct answer: “no, they do not. But they are bombed or besieged if they want to follow their own way of life, like in socialist Cuba, North Korea or Libya”.
Breivik can’t be characterised a Christian fundamentalist, not even as a Christian nor Christian Zionist. His feelings towards Christianity are lukewarm at the best. He can’t even decide whether he is a Christian, he is still “struggling with this myself. Some of the criticism of Christianity…is legitimate.” As Jewish activists, he approves of “the Second Vatican Council from the 1960s …for reaching out to Jews”, which is usually detested by the conservative right.
Breivik is livid against Muslim immigration – though his arguments are valid for immigration in general, he always stresses “Muslim” element. But he does not call upon his country to stop tormenting Muslim states, though this is the main reason for Muslim immigration.
However, the immigration dispute is practically over in Europe. Understanding that immigration carries huge social costs penetrated into all strata of European society. Immigration presents a big problem to Europe on the background of low native birthrate. It is universally disliked, but by the wealthy people of privilege. If years ago immigration could be seen as a magic wand saving citizens from boring chores, something similar to slaves of ancient Greece or to machines, people do not see it this way anymore, as immigrants become enfranchised though not integrated. They certainly cause more unemployment and drop of salaries, if they choose to work; otherwise, they overload welfare budgets. Perhaps rather late, but now this debate is over in Europe. Today, a Norwegian does not have to shoot one’s fellow citizens in order to express disagreement with immigration: this became a commonplace.
A Counterpunch writer Vijay Prashad wrote: “the [killed] Labour youth had among them children of migrants from Sri Lanka and North Africa. Their Norway was not Breivik's Norway.” Well, that is why, probably, Breivik did not like them: he did not want their Norway to displace his Norway. Prashad condemned European conservatives who “cannot fathom that human beings are able to live convivial lives with those who are different” but history of Sri Lanka is not the best recommendation for peaceful conviviality. If however people of Sri Lanka want “to live convivial lives with those who are different”, they will have to practice that at home, not in Norway. Prashad may call Merkel and Sarkozy “Nazis” for refusing to let in more immigration, but the Utoya Massacre did sent a strong signal that many people feel bad about immigration and want it stopped.
Actually, immigration into Norway slowed down to a trickle. The government of Norway – like many West European governments – made immigration almost impossible. In a famous case, a young girl from Caucasus lived for some ten years in Norway, completed her university studies, wrote a novel in Norwegian – and still was deported as illegal alien. Multiculturalism is a slogan of yesterday, so Breivik is as outdated as Prashad.
