Sunday, August 21, 2011

Who Was Really Responsible for the Norway Massacre?

The German lawyer Michael Mannheimer draws conclusions about where the responsibility for the Oslo atrocities lies, based on the type of “logic” habitually employed by the MSM.

His observations were posted last month as a comment on a article at Politically Incorrect. Many thanks to JLH for the translation.

Why No Guilt Attaches to Islam Critics for the Massacre in Oslo
by Michael Mannheimer

Don’t let it make you crazy! The Mainstream Media and The Bleeding Hearts as well as the political establishment are being exposed by their attacks against Christianity and Islam-critical forums. Here are a few examples of their argumentation.

1. Despite a thousand kinds of exhortations to hatred, violence and murder from the texts of Islam and its contemporary apologists, the MSM argues in EVERY INSTANCE of the more than 17,000 (!) terrorist acts committed by Muslims nowadays that these acts have NOTHING to do with Islam, and that the majority of Muslims are moderate.

Now, however, with a SINGLE terrorist act by a non-Muslim — specifically a SINGLE Christian (!), that reasoning does not apply: Suddenly, Mainstream-Media-And-Bleeding-Hearts, Inc. holds all of Christianity responsible for it.
2. Over one million dead from the 17,000 Islamic terrorist acts VERSUS 90 dead from one isolated Christian terrorist strike. Such a difference could be represented on the page of a newspaper by an ordinary bar graph. Using one-tenth of a millimeter for each person killed, the bar for Islam would be one-hundred meters long; the bar for the Norwegian assassin would be all of 9 millimeters. If you still wanted to use this kind of bar graph, you would have to choose a measure of a thousandth of a millimeter for each person killed. This would yield a bar of ten centimeters for Islam. The bar for non-Islamic attacks would be visible only under a microscope.
3. According to the popular standard, cui bono? (who profits?), Islam and/or its Western supporters, in line with their characteristic mindset, should be identified as the beneficiaries of the Norwegian attack. Because both of them profit most from this terrorist act. I wager, however, that this time no one will be reading about any such conspiracy theories.

4. If the political establishment really wanted to push the guilt for the Norwegian attack onto the Islam-critical forums, then they should ask themselves why they have never yet proceeded against the countless Islamic hate forums. These, logically, should bear the guilt for Islamic terrorist acts. There is no escape for them from this logical defect in their argument without admitting that they had been secretly supporting Islamic terror against the West. Even if this were true, none of them would admit it. And if one of them did do that, he would be defamed by the Western political establishment as an “isolated instance” or “psychologically disturbed.”
5. Should the political establishment reproach Islam-critical forums with their contributing to hatred of Islam and therewith to this terrorist act, the establishment would be officially admitting for the first time that words do in fact lead to actions. In regard to Islam and especially in regard to some 2,000 calls from the Koran and the hadiths for the murder of all “infidels,” the political establishment has always denied this principle or equated it in the must rudimentary fashion by referring to the Mecca suras.

So if the political establishment should harass or forbid all Islam-critical forums, this should be supported without reservation… provided the political establishment is logically consistent enough to also forbid all Islamic forums as the cause of the entire problem. In which case, Islam-critical forums would be rendered obsolete.
6. The Norway massacre can also be portrayed as the act of a desperate person, whose rage at the cumulative degradation of Norway and its Western-Christian foundation was expressed in this terrorist act. If Palestinian terrorism can be justified by the “occupation” of Palestine by infidel Jews — and this is done especially by PC Norwegians — why then are they incapable of similarly understanding or explaining the terrorist act of an individual Christian directed against the occupation of his country by Islam?

The answer is clear. It is not that Islam is occupying Norway and the rest of Europe. Rather, the political establishment — against the will of their own populations — is allowing Muslims by the millions into Norway and the other countries of Europe. The chief responsibility for the universal Islamization of Western countries is attributable solely to the overwhelmingly leftist — although in the best case also Bleeding Heart — political establishment of those countries. They alone were and are the ones who in the last fifty years have brought into their lands millions of Muslims who are incapable of adapting to the indigenous culture and values. They were authorized to do this by no one but themselves.
7. You can, if you like, interpret this terrorist act as the long- foreseen beginning of a civil war in Europe… as the desperate act of a (still lone) indigenous citizen, using the tools of desperation to prevent Europe’s drift toward an Islamic caliphate. It is interesting that this act of terrorism pertained not only to Muslims, but also to parts of the political establishment. Not just the CIA but other Western secret services as well have long predicted this scenario. So Norway, 2011 is considered the prelude to a beginning civil war by indigenous citizens in defense of their continent. That need not mean that now all Europeans will reach for their weapons. But presumably the start has been made. No wonder the political establishment is taking fright.

In the Oslo terrorist act, the facts and the conclusions to be drawn from them are unrelated to one another, except that the defenders of Islam and the contemporary critics of Christianity (the “political establishment”) are united in combating and abolishing the West in general and Christianity in particular.

The defenders of Islam are collaborators with the Islamic ideology of hatred, they have brought Muslims by the million into their lands and have, in unprecedented measure, changed the face of Europe until it is unrecognizable. In doing so, they have oppressed the will of the majority of indigenous Europeans and are ipso facto responsible for the Norway massacre.

Previous posts by Michael Mannheimer:

2010 Nov 21 Islam as the Victor of Western Value-Relativism
    28 The Principle of Abrogation in the Quran
  Dec 19 Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe

(Updated to correct an error in the intro)


Westward Ho said...

No wonder the political establishment is taking fright.

"Taking fright." I think it's just a momentary shiver at this moment.

But it has me thinking about how fear motivates the dhimmi tyrants, fear of Islamic wrath (combined with self-hate) lies behind their perverse relationship with Islam. Their succeptibility to do things when faced with threat of wrath should be well noted by those indigenous Euros seeking to convince them to "please represent our interests."

Their "taking fright" may be the answer. They need to fear their betrayed countrymen more than they fear both Islamic brutality and liberal salon objection.

Repeatedly hearing messages like Paul Weston's may helpfully disturb their complacency.

A quote:
You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists:

We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us!

trencherbone said...

We can eventually overcome the MSM's dhimmitude by publishing the truth about Islam, coming at it from every possible angle, in every relevant context, on every available forum.

Here is a list of resources for the struggle against Islam, indexed in alphabetical order.

John Delano said...

May I suggest this analysis is wholly supported by the great work "Imperium" by Francis Parker Yockey, which interested readers can find at Amazon and other sites. Written in 1949 it accurately described 60 years in advance the events in Norway and what is likely to erupt throughout Europe and North America,

budkavlen said...

Breivik acted with cold logic:

1. He did not fight muslim immigrants. He fought those who let them in.

2. He targeted the central offices of the government in the city centre, which caught all the attention of the police. Then he could operate calmly in the surroundings.

3. He hurt the responsible politicians the most he could imagine, by killing their kids.

4. His goal was to attract the attention of media. He was so confident he had succeeded, that he did not kill himself, nor fight the police, when they arrived, but he gave in to them.

He was not insane. He was an intelligent fanatic. His thoughts are now spread over the whole of the globe.

He chose to live. He may have noted that media have a habit of giving the worst criminals a voice sooner or later. . .

World traveller said...

There is no doubt that Breivik is a raving lunatic. He is most likely also a right wing extremist, but I wonder if he hasn't been manipulated and groomed by a leftist/anarchist/pro-islam organisation. The only winners of his horrible massacre are the muslims and their collaborators. You can now NOT critisize islam or communism in Norway and Sweden.

blogagog said...

"Who Was Really Responsible for the Norway Massacre?"

I'm pretty sure Anders Breivik was the responsible party.

Expelliarmus13 said...

@blogagog: Of course he was, but the question here is: what brought him to doing something like this?
We all know the answer to that!... even if there is no excuse for his actions, there is a logical explanation.

Archimedes2 said...

A decent summary, but the argument tacitly accepts the proposition that Brievik was a Christian. This is wobbly, and demonstrably false.

Sagunto said...

Archimedes2 -

"[..] the argument tacitly accepts the proposition that Brievik was a Christian. This is wobbly, and demonstrably false."

My thoughts exactly.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

nimbus said...

Trencherbone, what an excellent blog/resource!