Majorityrights Central > Category: World Affairs

On March 11th, just a few days after Marine Le Pen finally reaches her target for mayoral signatures, allowing her candidacy for the Presidency to go forward, a psychopath begins a killing spree in Montauban.  He shoots the first of three non-white paratroopers, and makes his getaway on a black Yamaha TMAX, a 530cc scooter much prized by robbers.  A week later the same man, it is thought, but riding a white TMAX, attacks a Jewish school in Toulouse, coldly killing one adult and three children and wounding a number of others.  The authorities announce they are investigating neo-Nazi connections, but that line of investigation is soon dropped.

The area, meanwhile, has been flooded with security personnel.  There are over 7,000 hours of CCTV to check but, seemingly, few clues about the identity of the shooter - just that he understands guns, and he knows how to kill coldly and efficiently.  He may be filming his actions using a Go-Pro chest camera of the type sometimes used by skydivers.

Francois Molins, the public prosecutor in Paris, has declared the offences terrorism and seems to believe that the best chance of catching the killer is if he tries his hand again. 

France waits.  The presidential election campaign is on hold.  Sarkozy’s pitch for the NF vote - his talk about “too many foreigners” - has been dropped like a very hot brick.  The question everybody wants to know: do these killings hold any special horrors for Marine and her party, and for the patriotic French?

... all seventy-seven of them from both attack sites are pictured here.  Some additional biographical information is here.

At a quick estimate I’d say six are one kind or another of Asian, one African, three mixed-race.  One is Georgian, one Kosovan and the remaining sixty-five seem to be Scandinavian or certainly northern European.  Brievik’s three youngest victims were just fourteen years old: Johannes Buø, Eva Kathinka Lütken and Sharidyn Svebakk-Bøhn, a part-Maori.

Of the rest, seven were fifteen years old (four of them girls), eight were sixteen (five girls), and twelve were seventeen (six girls).  Of the seventy-seven, forty-one were female.

Many argue that Mr. Breivik was in fact executing orders from Mossad, to punish the Palestine-loving Marxist-governed Norway, but first and foremost to create a false banner for misinformed right-wing extremists to unite under, and that what he was doing was a “false flag” operation.

His manifest is vast, some 1500 pages, and he is pretty thorough in both what he says and what he did. There are a few facts that don’t make sense to me. How can he list all the problems caused by different Jews in our history and yet fail to mention even one of them with a single word in his manifest? He attacks the symptoms of diseases Europe is suffering under, but not the cause of the disease.

He is a Freemason too, and that certainly doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Freemasonry is international Jewry at it’s worst; they too are working for a de-construction of all nations on Earth, and to build a global Hebrew temple, enslaving us all under the will of the Jews and their servants, the Freemasons. Well, this explains why he doesn’t say a word about the creators of all the different religions and ideologies now set up to fight against each other.

READ MORE...

For racial nationalists who think that Anders Behring Breivik’s political beliefs are meaningful and, therefore, a profound problem, a rewarding study of his internet activity has been undertaken by Mark Humphrys, an Irish right-liberal and fellow traveller of the GoV brigade.  Said brigade is, of course, much more disaccommodated by Brievik’s slaughter of innocents than we are.

Humphrys asks the question, “Should the counter-jihad feel guilt about this monster?”

Well, when he took part in public counter-jihad discussions up to Oct 2010, he seemed fairly mainstream. There is nothing that would make one call the police. He was right-wing and anti-jihad, yes, but he was not a neo-Nazi (he was pro-Israel) or a white supremacist (he opposed the BNP because they are racist). He was Christian, but not a fanatic (he was pro-gay). In fact he was apparently like me - liberal right. He was anti-racist, pro-gay and pro-Israel. So how on earth did someone like that become a terrorist against the West?

OK, so he can’t tell the difference between racial separatism and racial supremacism.  How many times have we seen liberals fail on that one?  Dymphna at GoV answered Humphrys’ last question with the words, “it.will.not.compute.”  But what Humphrys concludes is that Breivik went over to the dark side in October 2010, and darkness is identified not with racial nationalism or even with racial supremacism but with “the jihadists”:

The story of Breivik is ultimately the same story as that of jihadist revolutionaries. It is the story of the temptation of utopian totalitarianism and the cleansing power of violence. For all his protests, Breivik is no different to the jihadists, and should be treated the same as them.

This is a loop which leaves us out.  As a new poster to British Democracy Forum explains:

The bombings and shootings in Norway over the weekend have brought into sharp relief the differences in the broad spectrum of nationalism between those who follow the Geert Wilders type pro-Israel and anti Muslim liberal civic nationalism and those who strongly detest everything that this stands for.

Up until these attacks the usual approach was that the Geert Wilders civic nationalists would call the other nationalists extremist and suggest they stood for unpalatable and unpleasant views. They would say they are Nazi and they cannot be popular or electable.

What we are seeing now is that it is really those who are most influenced by the kind of brainwashing coming from the mainstream media on the “right” such as the Daily Mail who are more likely to be a terror threat. And they are entirely divorced from many of those who claim, as do the socialists in Norway who were so cruelly shot down, that the real problem lies with Israel/Zionism and far less so with Muslims/Islam.

The shooter is of a similar mind to John Cain type republicans but with confusing liking of homosexuals added - so this confuses American conservatives.

The civic nationalists who post on this forum, who wish to emulate the politics of Geert Wilders, presumably find nothing in the manifesto or philosophy of the Norwegian killer that they disagree with - other than any advocation of violence perhaps.

This morning I received an email from our Danish friend Balder.  He had been doing a little digging and found the on-line trail of the psychopath Breivik.  His subsequent post was reproduced whole in the body of the email - and I put a link to it on the earlier Breivik thread today.

The Balder blog, which many of you will have visited down the years and know well, and which I know was on-line at 9.00am GMT this morning because I visited it, has gone missing.  All that appears on screen now is a 403 “Forbidden” message.  Meanwhile, the line is going out from the media that Breivik is “far right” and “describes himself as a nationalist”.  A good deal of effort is going in to focus on violent neo-Nazis.  I reproduce the text of Balder’s post below the fold.  You may judge for yourself whether Breivik fits the profile for a nationalist, or whether someone has decided to put the fix in.

READ MORE...

In the immediate aftermath of the January 8th 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in which a dozen others were injured and six killed, the liberal media immediately assigned “right-wing” status to the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. A big effort was mounted to pin responsibility onto the “cross-hair” image used by Sarah Palin and the “extreme language” generally of the Tea Party Movement. Loughner, it was eventually admitted, was registered as an independent voter. But more than that he was a psychopath. His hatred of Congresswoman Giffords was real but not rooted in reality. The liberal media did not apologise to Mrs Palin for its kneejerk display of hatred.

Now there is the Oslo bombing and the shootings at Utoya Island. The death toll stands currently at 84. The media has denounced the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, as “6ft tall and blond” with links to “neo-Nazis” - the links being a Stormfront account (obviously, the media thinks, or likes to think, that White Nationalism is National Socialism). It seems Breivik is actually a Christian fundamentalist who has posted “ravings” on SF against Islam.

But he did not bomb an Islamic building or shoot Moslems. He bombed a Norwegian government buildings and shot people associated with the governing party.

There is a major difference between an organised terror attack and the killing spree of a lone psychopath. Had the attacks in Norway been group-planned and executed by Islamic extemists the search for a political logic, however terrible and alien to our ears, would have had some validity. What political logic there may be, however, to the actions of the lone psychopath is strained through the filter of his insanity, and has no reference whatever to the world outside his head.

Breivik, of course, will be associated with “neo-Nazis” for evermore. There will be some deeply flawed people on the left who prostitute his name and the innocents he has killed to make a point about nationalism. Better than having to debate honestly. But ... no political meaning attaches to the actions of the classic lone psychopath.

Except perhaps this.

Psychopathy is always with us. The school bully, the overbearing boss, the neighbour from hell, the pub brawler ... the emotionally stunted and violently inclined exist everywhere, and always have. But why are there so many instances of psychopaths rampaging through schools or villages - or holiday islands - with a gun? Does the modern media create not their psychopathy but its expression in this form? Does the sundering of our connectedness and the loss of social capital - the fruits of liberalism - somehow increase the amount of harm a psychopath must cause to encounter his own coldness?

No, too difficult. Forget it. They’re all neo-Nazis, right?

The BBC News website features a graphic article posted yesterday (Wednesday) from the streets of Athens by Paul Mason titled Greece: What’s burning is consent.  It doesn’t leave a lot for me to say.  The press is generally doing a pretty good job of revealing motive on the part of the Greek political class, the German and French political leadership, the European Central Bank and the IMF.  The bottom line motive-wise appears to be the serpentine, high-risk derivative products to which Wall Street is known to be horribly exposed, and I’ve even seen attempts on the financial pages to explicate these.

Mason, although he is an economics journalist, eschews all that.  He is with the forces of light.

They came on, still, in the same old way: rigid, determined, clutching heavy sticks and crash helmets. They passed the riot police, the parliament, the indignados and their squatter camp - and marched away.

Now Syntagma Square filled with other protesters: the middle class, the salariat, the youth, people with tattoos up their legs, bare midriffs; a man in a tight Armani shirt and a white gas mask on his elbow.

Earth mothers, grandmothers - if the image of Glastonbury keeps occurring to me it’s for a reason - by now this protest is no longer the preserve of one segment of the demographic, or of politics. It is a cross section: right and left, young and old.

The nationalists, who’ve claimed the ledge above the square as their territory, are the toughest bunch.

The “indignados” - anarchist youth and just generally youth who’ve camped out there in the square for 35 days, their territory is below. The black bloc anarchists? Where do they come from - it is never clear but they always somehow do.

READ MORE...

A review of a recent publication by a senior researcher for the House of Commons which suggests murdering Colonel Gaddafi would be lawful.

by Alexander Baron

The extra-judicial execution of Osama Bin Laden was met with a mixed reaction; on the one hand there was jubilation that the fanatic who had taunted the world for a decade had at last been made to pay for his crimes. On the other hand, there was concern in some quarters that Bin Laden had not been arrested and brought to trial, and there was also the very minor objection that the United States had violated the sovereignty of a friendly nation.

Now, a House of Parliament senior researcher has published an official paper in which she uses the execution of Bin Laden as a justification for the proposed murder of Colonel Gadaffi, who presumably has succeeded Bin Laden as the baddest man on the planet. In her own words, House of Commons researcher Arabella Thorp “arrived in the Home Affairs Section of the Library in 1997, fresh out of music college” and was “very pleased to have found a job that I actually did want to do” because “there is a wide variety of people working here, they are all friendly and open and extremely helpful.”

Obviously though some are more friendly than others because according to Thorp in Killing Osama bin Laden: has justice been done?, “Some of the arguments used to present bin Laden’s killing as lawful could also be applied if coalition forces kill Colonel Gaddafi. General Sir David Richards, the UK’s Chief of Defence Staff, has reportedly said that the killing of Osama bin Laden should serve as a warning to Gaddafi”, and “a wider implication is that the killing may be seen as a precedent for targeted killings of individuals by any state, across international boundaries, at least where terrorism is involved.”

Great, so the United States, no, any state, can kill people it designates as terrorists, including across international borders, but according to the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism in the UK is defined in the following text as:

READ MORE...