There clearly needs to be a debate about immigration and Islam in a ‘secular’ Western democracy. Is the BBC prepared to hold it?
No.
‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions….Surely it is not an accident that many Liberals – avowed liberals and liberals who wear the mask of Marxism – wholeheartedly sympathize with terror and strive to foster the spirit of Islamic terrorism that is running so high at the present time.’
The outcome of the Breivik trial wasn’t really in any doubt but it has come as a severe blow to the Islamist supporting liberals of the BBC. The judgement they required was for Breivik to be declared insane…upon that happening the case could be rapidly closed down and the spotlight taken off Breivik’s reasons for doing what he did.
The BBC have absolutely no intention of allowing debate of Breivik’s reasons other than to state he was a far right extremist who was on a crusade against Muslims and immigration….and that anyone who is opposed to mass immigration is also a potential Breivik.
They will happily tell you Breivk conducted a ‘calculated, cold hearted murder’ but refuse to investigate what those calculations were…i.e. why he did what he did.
The BBC’s 5Live call-in was asking the question ‘What’s your reaction to Breivik’s 21 year sentence?’. Might it not have been more instructive to ask are Breivik’s views on immigration and Islam correct?
The BBC has had to rapidly adapt its stance now that Breivik has been declared sane. The new line is that although the court declared him sane the BBC will continue to insist and intimate he is insane. They will conflate his actions with his views…his extreme actions mean his views on immigration and Islam must also be ‘extreme’, and by association anyone else who expresses similar views must also be ‘extreme’ and potentially murderous. No actual examination of his views will be aired. Which was the problem in the first place….Breivik, and anyone else concerned about immigration, was denied an opportunity to voice those concerns by the Norwegian Establishment and media.
“I am not scared by the prospect of being in prison all my life. I was born in a prison where I could not express my beliefs,” Breivik told the court, adding: “This prison is called Norway.”
He therefore expressed himself in what he felt was the only way left to him…murderous violence against, not Muslims, but the Establishment that refused him a choice and denied him a voice.
The BBC condemn him but weren’t so judgemental when the Today programme brought on Bill Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and who said ‘it is part of the democratic process to bomb, if democracy is not very robust’.
When BBC reporters say Breivik shows no regret remember this from Ayers: “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough“, and, when asked if he would “do it all again,” as saying “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”
In Power (1938), Bertrand Russell noted that “One of the arguments against democracy is that a nation of united fanatics has more chance of success in war than a nation containing a large proportion of sane men.” The classic example he gives of power through fanaticism is the rise of Islam: “Mohammed added nothing to the knowledge or to the material resources of the Arabs, and yet, within a few years of his death, they had acquired a large empire by defeating their most powerful neighbors. Undoubtedly, the religion founded by the Prophet was an essential element in the success of his nation.”
“Muslims,” wrote the philosopher Ernest Renan, “are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.”
Before going any further have a read of a small part of Breivik’s manifesto and see if it is the ravings of a madman…..
‘Naturally, terrorists can wrap themselves around any religious ideology and twist it to suit their purposes. Islamism, certainly in the west, is not the predominant interpretation of the faith because many believe it involves a distortion of Islam’s true message. Nor does Islam have any monopoly on religious violence or fundamentalist intolerance.
Killing in the name of God has been going on for centuries, and within a multiplicity of faiths.
But Islamist terrorists are more than just disturbed freaks with an opportunist attachment to their religion. They are part of a global movement arising within Islamic civilisation, which is thoroughly embedded in the tenets and concepts of the faith.
Its followers, spurred on by imams, scholars and ayatollahs, are taught that Islam mandates them to kill and subjugate ‘infidels’ as part of a grand scheme for bringing about a renewed caliphate. They attend summer schools, training camps, mosques and madrassas in which jihad is the order of the day. And they imbibe the totalitarian ideas of Islamism day in, day out.
In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and a host of other countries, millions of Muslims are fired up by a venomous hatred of progressive values, much of which is then exported to the west. Their attitudes towards democracy, Jews, gay rights and women’s equality are medieval and create the space in which jihadism flourishes.
Today’s terrorists are therefore fuelled as much by religious ideology as they are by personal rage.’
One psychiatrist brought on by the BBC told us he had read all the manifesto and found it ‘clear, logical and sensible’….if you held the views Breivik did. Remember one of the survivors of the shooting also stated that what Breivik did was the logical outcome of his views and how Norwegian society treated him and those views.
The BBC’s label for his views….‘extreme right wing ideology’…‘extreme political views’….are they extreme…or mainstream? I would guess that the majority of British people hold similar views on immigration and Islam.
The BBC started off as they meant to go on…by fixing the debate and setting the parameters of what and how things will be discussed.
Chomsky would recognise such manoeuvres:
‘The aura of alleged expertise provides a way for the media to indoctrinate the public by using the experts to provide the perspective that is required by the medias own beliefs and concerns, lending the prestige of scholarship to the narrow range of opinion permitted broad expression on the media….providing the approved opinions that the media cannot express directly without abandoning the pretence of objectivity that serves to legitimate their propaganda functions.’
On Today they wheeled in Kjell Magne Bondevik (8:16) who was prime minister of Norway for eight years – his period in office ended in 2005…..who claimed that Breivik’s actions had made Norwegians more welcoming to immigrants, more accepting of multi-culturalism and more Liberal….it had also made Muslims more proud to be Norwegian. Evan Davis lapped that up and didn’t object at all…it’s all a perfect fit with the BBC narrative….however reality is somewhat different in Norway. They also dragged in Jonathan Freedland who upset the applecart by saying we must assert a more positive Britishness as well as ethnic culture….there is a need to take anti-Islamic views more seriously and talk about them. Don’t hold your breath. This is a change for Freedland who after the shootings happily denounced any ‘right winger’ who spoke of limiting immigration or the spread of Islam as extremist.
From then on throughout the day it was all down hill with the BBC seemingly intent on proving Breivik insane, his views extremist and racist, and anyone else who held such views potential terrorists.
Although declared sane the BBC unilaterally decided to ignore that judgement and pronounce him insane and wheeled in a variety of ‘experts’ to buttress their narrative.
A moderate assessment was that he was a ‘highly unusual character…but many people hold his views, though they won’t act as he did’…but it is ‘worrying that a lot of people share his views’…. presumably those holding his views are now also ‘highly unusual’ for the BBC.
On hearing Breivik is not insane the BBC’s first question was ‘Is he a psychopath?’…our guest psychologist says Breivik shows no remorse….but why would he? He clearly fully intended the outcome of his actions. Breivik shows no empathy….to which the BBC states ..‘A lot of mass killers have no empathy…which part of the brain effects that?’….clearly attempting to label Breivik brain damaged in some way.
The psychologist goes on to say he is a classic ‘controlling character’ attempting to control the court judgement …how?…by saying he would appeal if found insane. Highly unusual intention…no? Must be a psychopath wanting to appeal an unwanted result! Apparently such actions are typical of psychopaths!
So not insane…but is a psychopath.
Whilst the BBC are reluctant to discuss Breivik’s views at the same time they are keen to create the impression that those views are extremist, dangerous, racist ideas and that anyone else who holds them is either someone who has created the atmosphere that encouraged Breivik or are themselves potential Breiviks.
At one point one of the many psychiatrists the BBC dragged in claimed that Breivik had a ‘community of support’ which also backed his ‘apocalyptic, dangerous rhetoric’ but hadn’t taken that last step into violence. (The BBC of course deny that any such ‘community of support’ is behind Islamist terrorists)
The BBC jump in and ask ‘Is there any clue as to the prevalence of these views (on immigration and Islam)?’. Such an approach tells you a lot about the BBC mindset…first that they believe these views are somehow unusual if not abhorrent and that secondly they have absolutely no idea as to the reasoning behind such views and why people become angry when their voices are ignored by government.
They ask ‘What does it take to take that extra step into violence?’…the answer….a difference in the brain apparently….so the BBC get what they want….Breivik might not be ‘normal’ whatever the court says.
In fact they got an even better result for the psychiatrist went on to say that in order to combat the likes of Breivik we must take a ‘societal approach and look at all people who are talking about limiting immigration and Islam and treat them all as likely suspects.‘
In other words anyone who spoke against immigration or Islam could be classified as an extremist and ‘dealt with’….because there is a danger of his racial and religious intolerance ‘going mainstream’….‘Twisted and warped individuals see him as an ideological leader for his views.’ If you don’t want mass immigration or believe Islam is a dangerous ideology…you are twisted and warped! Insane!
The next BBC claim was that Breivik may be putting on a front….a veneer of sanity that will crumble once he is jailed…he’s insane really, just hides it well.
And yet more talk of madness….his views are evidence of ‘political insanity…the ability of political ideologists to drive extremism.’…….he may be sane but he is ‘morally insane’…knowing what he did was wrong but not caring.
When one psychologist stated that Breivik was sane the BBC leapt in and questioned that….‘Does he not have to have a mental illness to do what he has and still convince himself that he is sane?‘
Finally we have the BBC’s last word…‘Obviously you need some level of madness to do what he did!’
So that’s clear then….he might be sane but for the BBC anyone holding his views is clearly insane….even if he hadn’t killed anyone….and all despite one ‘survivor’ stating that Breivik’s action was a ‘Political act made by a responsible (logical and coherent) person acting on his beliefs.’
The BBC are clearly trying to silence critics of Islam and those who want to limit immigration by scaring them into silence with the threat that they will be denounced as racists and extremists.
What did a Labour MP say after the killings?
Labour MP Tom Harris. Writing just three days after the killing spree took place, he said: “Here, thank God, was a terrorist we (Liberals) can all hate without equivocation: white, Christian and far right-wing.”
White, christian and right-wing: a terrorist liberals can hate with impunity.
Since 9/11 the left has been wrestling with its liberal conscience. This “new” terrorist threat (which wasn’t new at all, even then) came from people with a different colour of skin and different religion to us. Weren’t we being racist in condemning them?
Such was the desperate desire to salve our liberal consciences that we turned intellectual cartwheels in our attempts to convince ourselves that militant islamism is no more a threat than radical christianity. Some have even tried to invent a new word: “christianicism”.
But even after Norway, the threat from militant islamism is present, it is real, and it is appallingly dangerous.
If the left continues an ever-present liberal fretting about tarnishing ordinary, law-abiding muslim citizens with the stain of jihadism, which prevents it from articulating the awful threat we face, then the public – who do understand the threat and who need our support and protection – will turn instead to the right. And who could blame them?’
Fairly clear…there is a threat, a highly dangerous one coming from Islamically inspired terrorism.
Does that make Tom Harris a ‘far right extremist’?
Let’s just have some frame of reference…let’s hear what a Muslim has to say:
‘It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution.’
(Jihad Fi Sabillilah: Jihad in Islam by Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi “– Chapter 3, Pg 10)
The BBC is not keen on hearing the views of people like Breivik but are very keen to hear that of ‘moderate’ Muslims and to promote them as such:
Edmund Standing, August 13th 2011, 10:55 am
‘Last Thursday, I appeared as one of a number of guests on a BBC Radio 4 programme looking at extremism in the UK [MP3] and the section of their interview with me that aired was on my research into neo-Nazi networks in the UK.
The programme sought largely to examine the question of ‘Islamisation’ and the EDL and did so by using the recent outrageous ‘Shariah Controlled Zone’ sticker campaign of fringe group al-Muhajiroun as a key example of what leads some to fear the ‘Islamisation’ of Britain is under way.
We didn’t hear of this, nor did we hear from any of the Muslim moderates who are campaigning against this sort of thing.
Indeed, instead of hearing from moderates, Lutfur Rahman – yes, Lutfur Rahman! – was wheeled out to represent the voice of ‘moderation’. Naturally, we had the usual condemnation of ‘extremists’ and Rahman came across as quite a reasonable sort of bloke, but anyone who then chose to Google Rahman’s name after the programme could immediately find numerous examples of his own Islamist connections, documented many times by this very website.
Anyone looking for proof that Britain is being ‘Islamised’ and that we’re all doomed need frankly look no further than the murky world of Tower Hamlets politics of which Rahman is the central figure. Yet the BBC presented Rahman as the voice of moderation.
This is really poor on the part of the BBC. I have to admit to being frankly embarrassed to have been part of the programme.
And this from the Commentator:
‘To assist them in the momentous task of analysing the life of such an important historical figure the BBC called upon the services of one “Abdur Raheem Green”.
Abdur Raheem Green throughout his career as a preacher has launched attacks on many of the prized values of liberal society. He has lambasted the idea of sexual equality stating that society “pressures our daughters to get degrees, to be doctors or engineers” describing this as “sick”.
Green also states that both homosexuality and adultery are “crimes” which should be dealt with “by a slow and painful death from stoning”. Most shockingly Green appears to sing the praises of violent jihad opining that “dying while fighting Jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise and Allah’s good pleasure”…..When institutions which have such a large influence on our society find no issue with these individuals they fail in their societal duty to challenge them.‘
On the same programme the BBC also give a platform to the likes of Tariq Ramadan (‘one of the most influential voices on young Muslims’) the slippery Islamist…the one who claimed it was justifiable to kill Jewish children in a ‘war’, and Ikrima Sabri who just loves Jews and the West…and is happy, like Ramadan to send children to be Martyrs for Islam…the man who wants to wipe out Israel…and the BBC think both he and Ramadan are suitable as respected commentators on the life of Muhammed…never mind the ever present Mehdi Hasan.
If an all too powerful and influential media organisation such as the BBC is promoting extremists as ‘moderates’ (whatever moderate Islam is) the future is very bleak indeed.’
The BBC find it very easy to denounce all those who criticise immigration, Islam or Multi-culturalism as far right extremists who create an atmosphere that incites violence….does that include these eminent folk?:
Angela Merkel:
‘Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society has “utterly failed,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday, adding fuel to a debate over immigration and Islam polarising her conservative camp.
Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democrats (CDU), Merkel said allowing people of different cultural backgrounds to live side by side without integrating had not worked in a country that is home to some four million Muslims.
“This (multicultural) approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, south of Berlin.
She said too little had been required of immigrants in the past and repeated her usual line that they should learn German in order to get by in school and have opportunities on the labour market.’
Or Nicolas Sarkozy?:
‘Nicolas Sarkozy joins David Cameron and Angela Merkel view that multiculturalism has failed.
French president Nicolas Sarkozy has joined David Cameron in condemning multiculturalism as a failure.
Cameron launched a scathing attack earlier this months on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain warning that it fostered extremism.
His damning verdict came just months after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism in Germany had failed.
Now Sarkozy has joined the growing number of European leaders who have adopted identical views on multiculturalism.
He told the French people: ‘We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.’
‘My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure.
‘Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want a society where communities coexist side by side.
‘Our Muslim compatriots must be able to practise their religion, as any citizen can, but we in France do not want people to pray in an ostentatious way in the street.
‘If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.
‘The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women and freedom for little girls to go to school.’
Sarkozy’s statement comes after Prime Minister Mr Cameron said last week that public money should not be handed to ethnic groups who did not share British values.
He called for an end to the ‘passive tolerance’ of divided communities and said members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.
Or David Cameron?:
‘David Cameron launched a devastating attack today on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain, warning it is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to home-grown Islamic terrorism.
Signalling a radical departure from the strategies of previous governments, Mr Cameron said that Britain must adopt a policy of “muscular liberalism” to enforce the values of equality, law and freedom of speech across all parts of society.
Mr Cameron blamed a doctrine of “state multiculturalism” which encourages different cultures to live separate lives. This, he says, has led to the “failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage”. But he added it is also the root cause of radicalisation which can lead to terrorism.
“As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’ and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. This is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.’
or Trevor Phillips who backed Cameron’s speech on multi-culturalism and also said this:
‘Christians must choose between religion and obeying law, says equalities chief Trevor Phillips
He declared that Christians who want to be exempt from equality legislation are like Muslims trying to impose sharia.
Religious rules should end “at the door of the temple” and give way to the “public law” laid down by Parliament, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
You can’t say that because we decide we’re different we have a different set of laws. That, by the way, er, to me there’s nothing different in principle between a Catholic adoption agency saying “the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us”, why not then say, “Okay, then Sharia law should apply in certain parts of the country.” It doesn’t work.’
and this:
‘When I remarked last month that it was time for Britain to move on from divisive, 80s-style “multiculturalist” policies, I thought it might cause a mild stir among Britain’s diversity professionals and activists. In fact, it unleashed a passionate argument both at home and abroad. I have even, as one friend grumpily complained, ruined a couple of dinner parties where the “Britishness” debate got ugly.
This was a debate waiting to happen.
I disagree with those who say that integration and Britishness are irrelevant to the struggle against racism. There can be no true integration without true equality. But the reverse is also true. The equality of the ghetto is no equality at all.’
or this:
‘We cannot allow discussion of race and immigration forever to be seen as playing into the hands of extremists. The forty-year old shockwave of fear has gagged us all for too long.
Our aim is the integrated society – one built on fairness, respect and dignity, confident in all aspects of its diversity.
We need to start a new conversation about how we get there, a dialogue has to be guided not by fear, but by hope.’
or Boris Johnson:
‘To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers.
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?’
or how about these Muslims?
Maryam Namazie:
‘ There are a lot of Muslims, ex-Muslims and atheists even who don’t speak a word of Arabic or who do. Obviously that is not a criterion for understanding, accepting, or as in my case rejecting Islam and religion.
Moreover, we aren’t talking about something centuries past or taking place on some other planet. Every day, all day, we live through and can see the misery, barbarity and cruelty that Sharia and political Islam are unleashing across the world. Not a day goes by without this movement hanging the likes of sweet 16 year old Atefeh Rajabi for ‘acts incompatible with chastity,’ stoning men and women to death for adultery, executing apostates like Ehsan Fattahian, throwing acid in the faces of girls who dare to go to school, imposing sexual apartheid and misogyny, and murdering our beloved Nedas in broad daylight.
Our opposition to Sharia is not about solving your problems (which seem far too great for that) but about standing up for humanity vis-à-vis this onslaught.
And by the way, people’s destiny is what they make of it and we are making ours.
And unlike Sharia and Islamism, it has nothing to do with hate.’
Gina Khan is a British Muslim woman who lives in Birmingham and campaigns against extremism. She has blogged at Butterflies and Wheels.)
‘Ayaan understands what has gone wrong with the policies of multiculturalism. As a young child and teenager I grew up in an area where the majority was English but there were also Greeks, Chinese, Jamaicans and Indians living in the same community. Everybody got on and respected each other. My parents ran supermarkets, so we were integrated, if not allowed to assimilate as females because
of the religion. And now the white people are leaving, the area has disintegrated, and it breaks my heart. Most members of my family have moved out.
The area has been Islamised. Mosques, mini-mosques and madrasas rise up on almost every street corner, but there is nothing for the youth. Drugs and crime has made the area unsafe for young girls. Social services and the police know what is going on.
I have witnessed anti-west and anti-Jew posters and leaflets appear in shops run by young bearded Muslims. I watched the Islamists mobilise the Muslim community right under my nose. Before 9/11 the time I could not name it, but I knew something was not right, but it was being done in the name of Islam.’
And these Muslim voices:
The Victimisation of Moderate Muslims
‘When I married V.S. Naipaul and moved to England in 1996, I thought I had left the horror behind.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Who’d be female under Islamic law? In Muslim states, violence against women is validated. A dark age is upon us.
The Talibanisation of British childhood by hardline parents ‘I have met Muslim lawyers and academics who have turned to Taliban-style beliefs’
When will the BBC talk about this?:
“It’s true. Jews cannot walk the streets of Malmö and show that they’re Jews,” said Lars Hedegaard.
‘Hedegaard lives across the water from Malmö in Copenhagen, Denmark, where he was a columnist for one of Denmark’s largest newspapers. And like all over the Western world, some on the Left, along with Arabs and Muslims and anarchists, have formed a political alliance against Israel and Jews. They demonstrate together, and in Sweden, they vote together. Muslims are a core constituency of the Left.
The immigrant issue a big reason the right-wing Swedish Democrats are the fastest growing political party in the country.‘
‘In 2009, a chapel serving the city’s 700-strong Jewish community was set ablaze. Jewish cemeteries were repeatedly desecrated, worshippers were abused on their way home from prayer, and “Hitler” was mockingly chanted in the streets by masked men.
“I never thought I would see this hatred again in my lifetime, not in Sweden anyway,” Mrs Popinski told The Sunday Telegraph.
“This new hatred comes from Muslim immigrants. The Jewish people are afraid now.”
“Some Swedish politicians are letting them do it, including the mayor. Of course the Muslims have more votes than the Jews.”
A final word for Jonathan Freedland who tells us that critics of Israel are not ‘racist or engendering violence’ which must also surely apply to critics of Islam…(exept of course Israel stands for democracy and progress whilst islam stans for oppression and a return to the Dark Ages):
‘I have multiple criticisms of IJV, most of them amply aired already on these pages. But even their most trenchant opponents must surely blanch at the notion that these critics of Israel and of Anglo-Jewish officialdom are somehow in favour of genocide literally, eager to see the murder and eradication of the Jewish people. I understand Melanie’s apparent logic that by criticising Israel, IJV align themselves with a radical Islamism that wants Israel wiped off the map, ergo IJV are pro-genocide but it is an absurdity, one that drains the word genocide of any meaning. For if Mike Leigh and Stephen Fry are for genocide, what word is left to describe, say, the Sudanese regime and their murderous assault on the people of Darfur?’
We are all heading for a disaster of biblical proportions. No one on this planet will escape it. The politicians for at least the last 50 years have been responsible for this. The best thing to do is get out of the urban areas because these will be war zones.
This isn’t conspirary theory it is being said all over the place by different governments. I’d say Autumn is when it all goes bad.
Anders Breivik is a mass murderer of innocent people. He maybe the first but he won’t be the last.
Why does everyone still refer to BBC/New Labour et al, as the “Liberal left”? They’re not “Liberals”, they’re Socialists..That’s why they’re currently attempting to castigate Breveik as insane. He murdered their people. The Socialist hegemony and their youth indoctrination camps, that have presided over Norway forever and a day.
I refuse to call them ‘liberals’ but they are certainly not *all* socialists. What unites all of them is that they are Globalist. Economically many are leftie, many are centrist, economic liberlas, and quite anumber are far right open borders free marketeers, but they all share a hatred of traditonalism, and nation states (especially ‘white’ nation states) and a belief that their *vision* of a borderless world will be *better* than what we have.
I prefer to call them Cultural Marxists. Before this is all finished the vast majority of us will dea.
dead
Contrast Brevik and the rioters.
Both state they were fighting against the state.
I await the program where Brevik gets to state in his own words – read by an actor – explaining his actions.
Hmmm somehow its only violence on the left that will be tolerated.
Don’t watch the BBB, don’t pay the license tax (simple)
The fact is the BBC and the rest of society is afraid of Islam and for very good reasons. Who would dare be the presenter with the anti-Islamic point of view? No one does and we all know why, they would be in the minority, isolated and in grave danger.
Alan, by writing this article about the Islamification of our country shows great courage and even more so by trying to understand the motives behind Breivik.
What Breivik did was a terrible crime as well as very evil and it is tempting to say; “no sane man would do that” in order to justify what happened, that much is understandable, but why has no broadcaster, especially our illustrious BBC, looked beyond Breivik’s crime and asked why hundreds of children were isolated and being politically indoctrinated on a remote island, was not that a crime? No, apparently it was not a crime because the perpetrators were socialists and multiculturalist appeasers. The children were simply being taught the “proper way to think” in our liberal and irresponsible pacifist world.
If Islam is supposed to be a religion we must ask where are our Christian leaders in all of this? Are they hiding behind their long skirts in fear of retribution or ridicule, or do they really believe that Islam will show the path back to a new religious age on which they can ride ‘Forward to the Past’? Or are they trying to be the new leaders of all faiths, as that daft twerp who speaks to the trees once said?
Who will fight for our British Christian way of life if not the Bishops and the law makers of this country, is it really going to be left to Angela Merkel, Tommy Robinson and blogs like this one, or is the war already lost?
Too many Christian leaders are building up Interfaith commuity organizations in our towns and cities. Supported by anarchists and UAF multi’s they are trying to protect their communities from the Brevick inspired EDL and British Freedom Party. When all hell breaks loose I will feel sorry for them, but why are they so blind?
Let’s see if C4 go ahead with this one:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story
The historian who presents it has written a book in the past called “deliver us from evil”, so maybe that’s a good omen! We’ll see how far they dare take it in this documentary…Chances of the BBC doing similar? Zero. Their whitewashes of the crusades and Mohammed were truly astounding, but to be expected. Within 25 seconds of the opening titles (I counted them) of the first episode of ‘The Crusades’, they framed the first crusade as a totally unprovoked attack on peaceful, benign, tolerant, Muslims. They intercut this claim with contemporary footage of muslims laughing, joking and eating ice-cream with their kids. Very clever. Goebbels would be proud. Straight in there, no time-wasting…
In Copenhagen.
[Excerpt]:-
“The hospital invasion” [in Copenhagen] “was so barbarous and disturbing to the Danish public that a ‘shocked’ Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt was compelled to comment on it, calling it ‘serious criminal behavior’ at a news conference. But noticeably, although the Eid al-Fitr is a Muslim celebration that marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, it does not appear she nor any police official, politician or newspaper identified the culprits as such. They limited their identification vocabulary simply to the word ‘immigrant.'”
-from two page article, on event unreported by INBBC:
“Hospital Terror In Denmark”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/stephenbrown/hospital-terror-in-denmark/
Supplementary:
“Muslim Eid riots in Denmark:
Shootings, stoning the police, 60 club-wielding Muslims attack hospital.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/muslim-eid-riots-in-denmark-shootings-stoning-the-police-60-club-wielding-muslims-attack-hospital.html
It is the ultimate ideological war and some western leaders have identified it as such. Mr Bush and Mr Blair have been ridiculed and deconstructed by the media for pointing this out and acting accordingly. Mr Breivik , likewise, has been traduced by the media and his opinions suppressed but the fact is that Islam wishes global domination and it is being assisted by the liberal/left idiots everywhere.
It’s become plain that in what passes for political theory among progressives of the Beeboid variety that what, in ‘Harry’s Place’ is referred to as ‘anti Muslim bigotry’ – note the personalising, by using Muslim instead of Islam and the subjective yah-boo use of the term bigotry- has become the sole criterion by which fascism is to be defined. You can be a staunch defender of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the equality of all before the law but if you believe that Islam represents a threat to all these things then you are an extreme right winger. Surely this represents a quality of political thought that can only be described as decadent.
The Marxist Left, socialists of the BBC, and Islam have many points in common
1. They both hanker for a global government – world government in the case of Marxists, the Calliphate for Muslims.
2. Both systems adulate a “great” leader – Stalin or Lenin type for Marxists, a caliph or an ayatollah, in the case for Muslims
3. Both systems detest individuality.
4. Both systems hate Christianity as it puts the individual at the centre, while separating his duty to the state from his belief. Neither the Marxists or Islam can tolerate such a separation. For both, the ideology/belief, and the state, are one and the same.
For either one to succeed, they both need to first destroy Christianity- the faith that lies at the foundation of Western civilisation, and still serves as the model for developing nations. Only after the destruction of Christianity can they proceed to tear each other over the remains.
As the EU is dominated by the Left (they call themselves socialists), it is not hard to see why the EU wishes to incorporate the ME and Africa. The policy serves in the destruction of Christianity, as well as setting up an embroyo world government. Islam is doing the same in Africa and Europe – persecuting and killing Christians in Africa, and expanding by population growth in Europe.
If there is a war between Leftys and Islam my money is on Islam.
It would be a cake walk for Islam.
If Blair had put mass immigration and multiculturalism, heavily underpinned by political correctness that labelled any objector as ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic’, in his 1997 manifesto rather than have it as a hidden agenda, I wonder what would have happened?
If Blair had stated their true reason for encouraging mass immigration, to undermine the country’s tradition and values, Labour would be toast.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
There is never a “clean fight” with the Left they will ALWAYS use deceitful means to try to achieve their ends.
The Right (for all their self-satisfied Daily Mail complacency) generally have a strong sense of fairness. The Left generally have no such sense – it is a sort of psychopathology.
I learned this lesson editing Wikipedia entries. My first hand experience of the duplicity of the Left (fortunately Wikipedia retains a history of their and your actions and so with a little effort their duplicity can be exposed) is a lesson that will never leave me.
Books about Leftist propaganda techniques (if the Left have not truimphed and prevented their publication) will have an entire section devoted to the BBC.
The BBC is the very heart of the Leftist establishment. It is more important to them than the Labour Party, the Trade Unions, or even the State education system.
If the power of the BBC is threatened the Left will go mental, you just watch. It is not simply their beliefs, it is how they put food on their table.
The serfs are the enemies of the priviledged in a feudal society. That is why the Left are obsessed by class struggle. They want to be the aristocrats. They hate a free society with a passion.
This is a classless struggle, take a look at the demographic of the EDL. Never underestimate the working people of this country, they can see exactly what is going on with the bBC and the socialists in Britain
The Leftist establishment I am talking about despise the “lower classes” – they see themselves as “progressive” aristocrats in an anti-capitalist feudal society – their privileges justified by their socialist religion. If you have ever had the misfortune to socialise with such people their self-riotousness idiocy is closely followed by their snobbery. Both arise from their narcissism. Their huge but fragile egos make them unhappy and destructive people. A State broadcaster (from which like the medieval church they suck a good living from the masses while preaching to them) is one of their natural habitats.
The EDL tend to be working class, which is why the upper-middle class BBC ponces hate them with such a passion. They believe the serfs are put on this Earth to do their bidding.
And if these ungrateful oiks (who the left cry crocodile tears for) won’t do as they are told; they despise them. They fling insults at them, as they do all opponents, but they cannot comprehend that the working-class are not some malleable mob that they can control just by pretending to be their champions.
“self-righteous”
What a cracking post Alan!
Chapter and verse, QED and a fine longitudinal study into how the BBC moulds and massages the “prescribed agenda” that will please the Observer, Guardian and fellow travellers to the rainbow nation of Islamic Socialism…Gadhaffi, Saddam,Nasserand Assad would be pleased(current Assad, notwithstanding).
Breivik was sane, cold and coherent with a worldview that many identify with….he argues it better than the gabbling gobblers of multikulti pap do in Beebland anyway.
A gutless murderer of defenceless kids…but sane nonetheless in way that will disturb the medicalising tendency of libleft types.
Why-it`s as if we might be needing those Soviet psychiatric wards back again-so we can confine “racists, homophobes, anti-Islam, conservatives and their ilk” -for the sake of themselves as much as for society, of course.
The pathetic sentence on Breivik only shows the liberal notion that “prison solves nothing”…and let`s hope the self loathing liberal creeps skewer themselves when Mark Chapman gets released,,,,,but then “some crimes are bigger than others”…
I have not heard Mark Steyn interviewed by the BBC
Europe could sink into chaos due to muslim immigration.
Alan
So do you agree with Breivik’s analysis, but not his response? Your article is verbose, contradictory and evasive, but there’s a whiff of sympathy for Breivik’s ‘reason’ throughout.
So if you like Socialism (as you do) then you must agree with the millions of murders conducted by Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot (amongst others).
If you agree with someone’s opinions about a subject it doesn’t mean you agree with their actions. And no-one I’ve come across supports Breivik’s actions in any way, shape or form.
If you really think agreeing with Breivik’s comments on Islamism means you support his actions, then you are admitting you support the actions of the mass-murderers I named above.
Far be it for me to defend Alan. His exhaustive account of the reporting of this story seems clear enough to me.
Breivik is a psychopath, who only finds anyphysical courage of his convictions with a loaded gun , and on an isolated island with a load of defenceless kids at his mercy. Truly evil in what he did-and any society that was serious about defending itself would execute his like. No question of that.
And yet-you don`t need to conflate his actions with his excuses. His account of how his society is going chimes with what many of us sense is happening to ours as well. That he didn`t even kill a Muslim (as far as I know) somehow doesn`t stop him being cited as a threat to Islamic plans to integrate successfully with the rest of us. Liberals wave the shrouds-and Islam rightly sees it as being no different from white flags of surrender.
Beiviks accounts of his thinking were thoroughly censored and shut down as lines of legitimate enquiry by the liberals that run the culture of “right-thinking and progressive types-like the BBC and Guardian of course, but their Norwegian equivalents in the courts and media over there too.
The Groupthink is the same whether you`re in the EU or not…you are anyway to all intents and purposes. Gramsci, Spinnelli, Monnet, Heath, Jenkins, Foucault, Marcuse, Patten, Thompson, Rusbridger-no need to sift the nuances and shades between these quisling traitors, self loathing highly-paid and pleasured “bien pensants” of the Cultural Revolution…only pink and lemon replacing red and yellow in the Chinese/Soviet hybrid they secretly crave….and create by stealth.
If Breivik shines just a glimmer of dark light on this lot…who won`t need guns and manifestos, because they`re always welcome to cite their rationale as and when…then the massacre of helpless undefended children remains an atrocity.
But not as “mad” or “out of a clear blue sky” as the liberals seem inclined to bundle and bin it.
Aren`t you just a little suspicious Jim of the likes of Melanie Phillips, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn getting a smearing?…and if not, why not arrest Paul and Ringo for inciting Charlie Manson by recording “Helter Skelter” then…that White LP needs removing off the shelves…NOW eh Jim.
“I make no apologies”…”if only one life is saved”…come off it Jim!
Spot on. Don’t expect a reply soon from someone whose typical response to a reasoned post reads: ‘Your article is verbose, contradictory and evasive’.
No debate, no counter argument, just empty rhetoric. Pathetic, isn’t it? But so Leftist.
SYRIA: INBBC is not keen to report the following, as INBBC appears to support Sunni Muslim opposition, as do ‘British’ Islamic jihadists:
“Security services ‘failing’ to stop British jihadis heading to Syria”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9499202/Security-services-failing-to-stop-British-jihadis-heading-to-Syria.html
As a son of N.Irish catholic parents. I made the decosion long ago not to follow a religion due to noticing the way both catholic and protestant factions defended and actively encouraged the sectarian violence which has blighted the peoples lives in Ireland for centuries. I feel very strongly that religion of any kind has no place in politics and to base a democracy on any unproven diety is ridiculous. All the major religions and thier out of date rules have nothing to give to modern thinking. We do not need a `God` to make an informed and moral decision with regards to how we should live. A decent person does not need the threat of an all powerful super entity to `help` mould a persons behaviour. If a person wants to believe in a `God` then surely that should be a personal thing ie: if a person prays then that is up to them, it is not some badge to wear on thier sleeve to impress thier fellow followers or some scruffy bearded cowardly Imam every Friday… A belief is not a belief if it has to be enforced by a swathe of medieval rules gleaned from books that have no actual author only masses of unidentifiable sub editors who had license to alter and censor the original texts (if there ever were any that is).
Furthermore, I honestly think that if the current irresponsible promotion of any faith at all within the political sphere can only bring sorrow and misery to the race of mankind. A thousand years ago we were far from an enlightened species and we were intolerant to different faiths and cultures as all the main doctrines were solely aimed at controlling the masses in much the same way as modern day political parties do today but in a much more violent way. The Papacy in Rome is based upon the Roman way of rule its positions of power hold the same meanings within thier church. The Islamic religion supposedly states that there should be no one person above any other within thier faith, yet time and again so called religious `clerics` and ayatollas consistently do just that. Not only do they claim higher status, they actively reinterpret religios texts to suit thier own needs to the detriment of the masses and in doing so cement thier own status and power over those beneath them who blithely swallow any stupid out of synch viewpoints they hear. Invariabley these viewpoints have no benefit whatsoever to those who hear them, but becouse each statement holds the vieled threat of being out of favour with some unproven super being they take all statements in without question. Islamic cultures do not promote equality and do not promote education of the masses as this would no doubt lead to serious questioning of much of what is within thier books. All religion is based upon a small section of the ruling elite gaining power over the majority and then sustaining that power with vieled threats or religious violence. I believe it is up to an individuals conscience to choose whather to do good or bad, it`s what makes us who we are, to me, somebody who bases thier morality and lifestyle purely upon what they have been told by thier thier faith as a person without the capability of reasoning and human understanding, it`s as simple as that. In the last hundred years alone most of what we used to believe has been disproven or become outdated… The eating of pork for instance… We have refridgeration now so outlawing eating pork is largely irrelevant. Banning eating pork was mainly due to it being the meat that would most likely spoil faster than other meats due to the hot desert climates, and as such was deemed unclean. at the time that law benefitted the people, but we know about germs and bacteria and how to prepare such foods properly, so the law is now obselete. We also know that the world is round and not flat, we also know that Jews do not drink babies blood during Yom Kippur… Only when our society becomes truly secular will wars and suffering cease. Religion is a form of dictatorship, it is intolerant in many aspects and fuels deciet, lack of understanding, immorality, hatred, and suffering. Until allowances for religious beliefs are no longer made in politics there will always be an undercurrent of disquiet in our societies. Just becouse modern thinking has enabled us to divest ourselves of many intolerant christian laws (witch burning, pogroms etc.) it does not mean that thier places have to be taken up by laws made up in a cave by some sweaty hateful dishonest lunatic flea bitten bearded tramp in a cave 1400 years ago…. I dislike all religions, I don`t go to mass yet I feel I am a good person mostly and I have no time for those who disagree with my point of view. Religious fanatics are no different to me from psychopaths who do not have the tools to form thier own opinion.
Jihadists and ‘human rights’.
I think we know which side Islam Not BBC (INBBC) will be on in this:
“Al-Qaeda terrorists launch human rights bid.
“Two Al-Qaeda terrorists, one of whom plotted to kill thousands of people in a bomb attack on a British shopping centre, have launched an attempt to have their convictions quashed on human rights grounds.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9499541/Al-Qaeda-terrorists-launch-human-rights-bid.html
You are aware, of course, that Bill Ayers was a mentor of the Beeb’s great hero, the One aka POTUS?
Not related to the BBC, but for those interested, an excellent, rational, objective analysis of Islamic threat doctrine from Major Stephen Coughlin, who used to lecture on Islam for the US military, but was sacked for obvious reasons:
-Expect BBC-NUJ to campaign against this:
“Migrants face benefits axe in new crackdown.
“Migrants who are falsely claiming benefits after coming to Britain to work, study or visit face being stripped of their welfare payments, according to leaked documents.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9499378/Migrants-face-benefits-axe-in-new-crackdown.html
All very interesting stuff Alan, and a lot to most of it, but the upshot of your piece is:-
‘What are the root causes that led Breivik to do what he did: Who is to blame?’
A familiar refrain. Frankly Alan, your piece made me want to vomit.
I don’t recall Rosa Parks gunning down 70 rednecks to protest the ‘dhimmitude’ of black Americans.
Evil is evil. Breivik needs a rope put around his neck.
Your apologia for this monster is by far B-BBC’s blackest day.
Not sure I agree with you, Hippie. My sympathy with Alan’s point of view arises because Breivik is at the extreme end of a large section of the population who believe the democratic process has been bypassed when it comes to creating a multicultural society. Moreover, that once it has been established, all the perceived threats to the cohesive society that has taken centuries to evolve are not up for debate – you are, in fact, a racist should you so want to do.
Surely you can see Breivik’s case as a tragic result of this bypassing of the democratic process. Alan clearly demonstrates that Breivik argued this point forcefully and articulately – these were not the ramblings of a madman in the literary and logical sense, mad as we think he might have been in his actions.
We should all be very scared of Breivik’s case, and what it might herald for the future. It clearly demonstrates that open debate is desperately needed if multiculturalism is to be given some kind of democratic legitimacy (or otherwise). Putting it another way, what have the multiculturalists to fear that they constantly deny it?
Any apologia for the wanton evil of Breivik is morally repellant.
I mean:-
“The BBC’s 5Live call-in was asking the question ‘What’s your reaction to Breivik’s 21 year sentence?’. Might it not have been more instructive to ask are Breivik’s views on immigration and Islam correct?”
This aroused the type of disgust in me I usually feel when left wing scumbags try to blame the West for Islamic terrorism.
So your answer is merely to repress discussion of contributory causes through stupid invective. Who runs you – BBC or Hope Not Hate?
Certainly not the Nazi evil of the British National Party.
Why not just come out with it and admit you’re totally in favour of what Breivik did, just like the leftie scumbags who were whooping with joy when the Twin Towers came down.
hippiepooter, we are where we are. The most important thing now is to try to contain the potential actions of future Breiviks. This is why it is important to ask serious questions such as:
How many people share Breivik’s view that the left/Islam alliance will bring about continental civil war?
If this number is large, what is being done to reassure them that concrete steps are being taken to prevent this?
If nothing is being done, then how can the people who fear a clash of civilisations make their voices heard via the democratic process?
If they cannot make a difference democratically, then is violence the one and only option open to them?
If this is the case, what steps are being taken to close down those who object to the thought of impending civil war?
Will this lead to a leftist dictatorship?
It is up to our politicians to face facts and to actually do something about it, but unfortunately they are so ingrained in the culture of politically correct thought and expression (coupled with ambitions extending only the term of one election cycle) I cannot see any of them grasping the nettle.
Islam will prove to be the 21st century version of Nazism or Communism. Millions will die horribly, just as they did in the last century. At the very least, surely, we should asking pertinent questions rather than just paying PC lip service?
Without questions there are no answers and without answers WWIII beckons.
pace Rosa Parks – the (later) Black Panthers certainly got involved in more than their fair share of gun play, protesting such ‘dhimmitude’. I don’t think opposition to Islamic supremacism is a left/right issue myself- it’s a liberal democracy thing. It’s only sloppy thinking on the left that has led to the argument being put in such terms. Having said that, recent western libertarian rightists, with their enthusiasm for individualism, are more likely to throw up lone nuts ( such as McVeigh) than the left who go in for small group psychosis e.g. Baader-Meinhoff, the Angry Brigade, Weathermen and Italian Red Brigade. It’s very wrong to imply that Breivik may have been a murderous monster but one who had a point: besides his indefensible actions, his admiration for the Unabomber and the methods of al Qaeda placed, in the middle of 1500 pages of half baked ramblings, put him beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. I’m happy for him not to be allowed to use his actions as a means to proclaim his cause in court, but also find the tendentious way in which the liberal media have used him as a brush with which to tar Steyn, Spencer and Geller, unfair and underhand. It would be nice to say that all the Muslim groups plotting large scale, indiscriminate killings belonged to a different world, apart from this argument.
Ditto on how the [fake] liberal/left have exploited Breivik to smear mainstream opposition to multiculturalism and Jihad, but this isn’t sloppy thinking, this is quite literally murderous cynicism.
Great piece, Alan, and some well thought out responses from the posters.
As a reasonably well educated person, from an upper middle class background, who has many years experience of living and working in muslim countries, I can only re-state that anyone supporting the concept of allowing muslim economic migrants to settle in their country, is a deluded fool.
They are willfully ignoring all of the evidence for the sake of cynical political posturing.
The practical effects of that 7th century ideology of islam, always results in turning civilzed countries back in time. Back to those wonderful days when we stone adultresses, hang gays, cut the limbs off thieves, kill kuffars.
Oh what joy and enrichment these wonderful barbarian savages bring to our corrupt shores.
How TF have we ever managed without their ideololgy until now?
Why are the BBC and their Socialist comrades encouraging a religion that will kill them all the first chance it gets.
They don’t think that’s what they’re doing. I’d imagine it’s just about the most difficult challenge they face in editorial meetings, but they pretty obviously have no idea how to deal with it. And so they take the easy route and shift blame, and decide to re-educate the racist public instead. Go with what you know. There really is an intellectual failure across the corporation here, and on a number of levels.
Not to say a failure of moral courage and integrity.
One of the worst results of the ignorance that Islam promotes is that lots of very poor countries will stay poor – because they will be corrupt, , they will resent and resist market capita;lism, they will lack the rule of law, contract and property that underpins any efficient economy – and free speech will be suppressed including any suggestion that Islam and its pre-medieval ideology is at the root of economic failure.
But it is all the fault of the West, of course, So simple facts like this – such as the dire state now of Egypt’s economy – will npot be reported by the BBC.