The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)
This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Sunday, 24 July 2011

Anders Breivik: the Terrorist and the EDL


The fact that Anders Breivik mentioned the EDL is hardly a ‘link’ between the EDL and this psychopath. Is there also a link to be made between Breivik and John Steward Mill (whom Breivik quotes) or even to the relativist philosopher, Richard Rorty (whose book Consequences of Pragmatism is listed as one of Breivik’s favourites)?


What if Breivik had mentioned the Lib-Dems? Would we then pretend to be startled and disturbed by that too?

He also says that he was ‘impressed’ by the EDL. You can be impressed by an organisation without sharing their beliefs and policies. In a sense you could have been impressed by New Labour’s masterful use of spin at the same time as despising its political ideologies.


One of the main reasons why most people join the EDL is to protest against both Islamoterrorism and its cheerleaders in our mosques, Muslim organisations, etc. It is Islamic terrorism which appals the average EDL member. So why would a person who supports the EDL have anything other than disgust for the actions of this Norwegian nutcase? You don’t fight Islamoterrorism by acts of terrorism. That perverse stance is reminiscent of Trotskyists (SWP/UAF) using red fascist techniques, and even red fascist ideas, in or to ‘smash fascism’. You don’t fight terrorism with terrorism. You fight terrorism by fighting against the ideas or the ideologies (e.g., Islamism) which give rise to terrorism. You fight the terrorists and their organisations. You don’t commit the same crimes as the terrorists in order to defeat the terrorists.

The Sunday Mirror says that Breivik’s views were vile. All of them? For example, he argued that ‘Muslim gangs in Norway are free to do what they want’. What’s vile about saying that? Indeed, from many accounts, what he says about Muslim gangs in Norway is absolutely the case and there is much evidence which shows it to be the case.

He also told the truth about Norway’s ‘Islam-blocks’ in Oslo. That is, blocks of ‘subsidised and low-cost’ housing especially created for Muslims. How on earth is multiculturalism served by creating subsidised Muslim ghettos? That’s the exact opposite of multiculturalism. It is, in fact, Muslim hegemony and supremacism - funded by the state itself. It’s a massive case of Leftist social engineering.

In this article the journalist also wrote that Breivik was a ‘Nazi sympathiser’. And then, immediately after that statement, it says that he proposed setting up an English Defence League in Norway. (An English Defence League in Norway? Doesn’t this journalist mean a defence league in Norway?) Clearly this journalist wants his readers to make a connection between Breivik being a Nazi and his connections to the EDL. In fact, a link between Nazism and the EDL. However, the only thing he says is that he ‘admired’ the EDL’s ‘tactics’; which is hardly an ideological endorsement.

No Nazi would ever support the EDL unless he was either retarded or he wanted to completely change the EDL’s political directions from within. The EDL is anti-racist and anti-Nazi. It supports parliamentary democracy and other democratic processes. The EDL is a supporter of freedom and is against both Leftist and right-wing totalitarianism. All these beliefs are challenged, in fact, by Islamism. Hence the English Defence League!

The last point to make is that Breivik was not a ‘Christian terrorist’. He was a terrorist who happened to be a Christian. (If you believe his recently doctored Facebook page.) There is a massive difference. For example, think of ‘Islamic science’. There is no Islamic science. There was only science which, in many cases, was carried out by men who also just happened to be Muslims.



The Koran and hadith contain countless eulogies to violence and jihad in the name of Islam and Allah. The New Testament simply does not. And even the violence in the Old Testament, of which there is a lot, is not carried out for God and it is rarely God Himself who sanctifies these many acts of violence. In fact, most of the examples of violence contained are simply parts of various Old Testament narratives (some historical, some fictional). So the Muslims and Leftists who have jumped on this case of 'Christian terrorism' should question their own motives first.


The other point is that the vast majority of Christians are not literalists towards the New Testament - let alone towards the sometimes violent Old Testament. Every word is these two books is not meant to be 'the word of God'. The words are, in fact, mainly narratives told by various historical and fictional characters.


With Islam, on the other hand, every single word in the Koran must be believed and acted upon by every Muslim. Every single word came from Allah himself. It is, in effect, Allah speaking to all Muslims. In that strong sense, every Muslim is by definition both a fundamentalist and a literalist. And it is these things alone which utterly distinguish Christians and Christianity from Muslims and Islam.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sunday Mirror news piece, ‘Breivik's blog rants reveal him as a Nazi sympathiser’, by Nick Owens, 24. 7. 2011.

ANDERS BREIVIK is an extensive blogger whose online rants about politics expose him as a Nazi sympathiser.

In one post he proposes setting up an English Defence League in Norway, saying: “I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown – this has to do with smart tactical choice by ­management.”

On Twitter he chillingly quotes ­philosopher John Stuart Mill, saying: “One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests.” The tweet, the only one on his account, was posted on July 17 – five days before the attacks in Norway.

In another blog post two years ago he argues Muslim gangs in Norway are free to do what they want, while whites forming gangs are branded as racists. He writes how it led to him linking up with white criminal gangs and taking part in clashes against police.






In one vile rant three years ago he says: “There are political forces in Oslo who want mass subsidised and low cost ‘Islam-blocks’ in Oslo West for ‘better integration’. If this ever becomes the case, most of Oslo will move.”

In another he says: “Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved?”

Yesterday Norwegian police chief Sveinung Sponheim – who is leading the investigation into Friday’s ­massacre – said that Breivik’s rants suggest he has “political traits ­directed towards the right and anti-Muslim views”.

1 comment:

  1. The sunday mirror wants to divert attention from itself in the coming days. It will be exposed as a hacker of phones etc. Hypocrites!

    ReplyDelete