Thoughts on the Massacre in Norway and its Aftermath
The crap-o-meter has reached truly epic heights in the nine days since the atrocities in Oslo and on Utøya island. The following is a round-up from an Austrian perspective, in no particular order.
When the attacks became public, everyone immediately blamed some fringe group of Misunderstanders of Islam. In fact, an Islamic group or two started celebrations of their own. A stark reminder of the 9/11 attacks, after which the not-yet-“Islam-is-a-Religion-of-Peace”-infected TV crews found thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets praising Allah.
But that scenario was not to be. Tragically (deaths caused by representatives of the Religion of Peace are not tragic?), the accused perpetrator turned out to be what the European MSM and the European Union have “always” known to be the most dangerous part of the political spectrum: the right wing, with its extremism, anti-Muslim sentiment, anti-EU sentiment. A witch-hunt such as never seen before began. The media and dependent caste of politicians were found at the forefront.
In Austria, chancellor Faymann (SPÖ) and vice-chancellor Spindelegger (ÖVP) sat down for a double-page interview in Kurier in full agreement that hate preachers must be stopped and a charter against hate speech should be discussed and later adopted, echoing demands made by the Greens party. The ministers of justice and interior chimed in that there should be even more data collection on the internet in order to prevent future attacks. In addition, those who approve of terrorist acts (what is the definition of such an act?) should be prosecuted. The chairman of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism asked for more legal power to catch those responsible for future attacks. These are truly frightening prospects.
In line with the search for “ideological” supporters of Anders Behring Breivik, the media tried hard to hunt down supporters of the Counterjihad network, which until last week was largely unknown, and now all of a sudden was reputed to be the most dangerous network around.
Never mind Al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Hizb-ut-Tahrir: a group of known and unknown individuals who champion free speech, the rule of law, democracy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as opposed to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam) are currently a threat to—— to whom or what exactly? A group of people that includes a Danish man of Iranian descent who says the following:
It causes pain in my heart that here in Europe I am the constant witness of indifference and a misunderstood perception of realities. It constitutes terror to listen to intellectual opinion leaders, people who have never experienced even one day of repression, even politicians who ought to side with freedom and feel strong responsibility for democracy, that they in the name of Goodness protect Khomeini and his successors’ right to perpetrate their world view.
When, in the name of tolerance, one does not feel entitled to fight the mindset behind burqas and headscarves, and when, in the name of a ‘multicultural society’, one supports religious law and just recently an Iranian funded grand mosque, this does not constitute tolerance. This is an act of treason, a mockery of the thousands who already have sacrificed their lives fighting for freedom. […]
By upholding our belief in universal values and the required courage to sacrifice ourselves for these values, we can overcome the tyranny and free the slaves of the world. We need courage to ask decisive questions and expose the despots in a timely fashion. This is the only way we can avoid repeating the horrors of Hitler. […]
Freedom is priceless and can never be bought. Peace, on the other hand, one can purchase, by selling feta cheese or by selling out ones fundamental values. Azadi is the word for freedom in Persian. It is the most beautiful word I know. I believe the word ‘freedom’ rings beautiful in any language.
Freedom is not merely a word used in touching musicals such as Les Miserables or exciting action movies about World War II. Freedom is the foundation for humankind. Freedom is timeless. As are the enemies of freedom. They exist in all times and manifest either in the strict uniforms of political ideologies or religious turbans and burqas.
Freedom can never be repressed. It will always penetrate even the most secure walls. Freedom is like a small plant which, with the patience of a Zen master, works its way up and penetrates the cement.
European political parties that are not part of the left-wing political spectrum, along with their voters, have been accused by leftists, especially the MSM, of being “right-wing extremist, neo-Nazis, right-wing ideologues who are also racist anti-immigrant Islam-haters.” Take your pick, as any combination of the above is valid.
Farshad Kholgi has this to say to the lovers of peace and harmony:
“Is it ‘right-wing’ to stand for women’s rights? Is it ‘right-wing’ to criticize religion? Is it ‘right-wing’ to defend freedom of expression? Is it ‘right-wing’ to defend the right of the individual over that of the ideology? If so, then yes, I present right-wing political views.”
No more needs to be said here.
The Austrian media were “successful” in finally finding their ideological perpetrator, right here at home! It is “the icon of the international right-wing extremism and Islam-haters”, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Our very own! Isn’t that something? We’re part of this! The shock! The horror!
It didn’t really work out the way the media wanted it to. After what must have been a laborious all-nighter poring over everything ever written or said by ESW, not one journalist presented a word of what she stands for. If they had, they would have had to publish something like this:
I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.
I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat. [speech Paris]
In her statement to the media, ESW said she was a “woman of words.” Examine her words, for the Austrian MSM has so far not done so:
If we do not reclaim our basic rights — including the most important right of all, the right to speak freely — our civilization will be destroyed. All of our great institutions, including democracy and the rule of law, are made possible by the fundamental human rights that we all used to take for granted. [Luton]
I advise you not to burn the Koran, but to read it. Only by studying what Islam stands for will we learn how to face it down.
Know your enemy. We do not fight him with knives or guns, but with the pen, the microphone, the video camera, and the printing press. Understanding what Islam means is our greatest weapon in the struggle against it. We do not need any intimidation or bullying, because the truth is on our side. [Luton]
Pro-EU political indoctrination was and is extremely successful, especially among youth and university students, who are taught that the EU is great, the savior of all problems, and without it there would be disaster and war. Politicians, such as former Italian president Giorgio Napolitano (in German only) or the former Austrian parliamentary president Andreas Khol, even label EU critics as “terrorists”. [ACT 2010]
If this is right-wing extremism, what constitutes center-right thoughts?
If ESW and others are hate preachers, what is the legal definition of a hate preacher?
If words are considered “ammunition” (as was reported by Kurier), what are the above words? Cannons? Whom are they fired against?
Is daring to uphold democratic values and ideals right-wing extremism?
Are socialists afraid of democracy, the rule of law, equality of the sexes (which they, ironically, championed in 1968 and beyond)?
An “expert” on “right-wing extremism”, Heribert Schiedel, argues in this article “that Sabaditsch-Wolff did not intentionally provide this intellectual ammunition. I cannot blame her for anything that she said prior [to the Oslo attacks]. But now she could take responsibility and distance herself. From now on, she must always consider the fact that people are reading what she wrote in addition to what her words might cause.”
Let us recapitulate: According to Schiedel, ESW should actually distance herself from democracy, equality of the sexes, the rule of law, pluralism. Has this so-called expert considered that ESW is widely read, and has been for more than two years? Mr. Schiedel, are you saying what I think you are saying?
How utterly fascinating that so-called experts can say whatever they like without any repercussion, and the non-leftists can’t say anything without repercussion! That’s freedom of speech 2.0.
Another case in point: In a guest commentary in a recent Die Presse, a professor argues that
“No one should say that words cannot kill. Of course they can in that they intensify the face of the enemy and build up a climate of demonization, which in turn causes the precondition of the killings by psychologically unstable fanatics, as was the case in the First Republic [right after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire] and as can be seen in the acceptance of the dangerous Islamist hate-preachers. Anti-Muslim hate preachers are also dangerous. [italics added]
Since the final sentence of his comments demonizes critics of Islam, the reader is left wondering what exactly he might mean. Is it dangerous (for whom, for what?) to quote from the Koran? Well, ESW can testify that doing that will get you a court date.
What, once more, is the legal definition of a hate preacher? There is none in Austrian law. Is an imam preaching to his congregation to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies a hate preacher of merely praying (for what, exactly)?
One final remark: Those criticizing the Counterjihad should be aware that opposing the Counterjihad (by way of logic) means arguing in favor of jihad.