Children of neo-Nazis could be taken into care to stop them being brainwashed at summer camps 4

Article by Allan Hall.

Ironically, this is a replay of the Nazi and Communist idea that children are the property of the state. This is an extremely dangerous precedent, particularly given that the hard left regards Nazis, conservative Republicans, evangelical Christians, Catholic traditionalists, decentralist paleocons, libertarians, pro-lifers, tax protestors, critics of affirmative action, immigration restrictionists and gun rights advocates to be more or less variations of the same thing. Also, look for the totalitarian humanists to begin advocating removing the children from the homes of smokers, gun owners, or those who don’t meet PC dietary standards. Other un-PC groups like drug users and prostitutes have long been subject to this kind of treatment.


The children of German neo-Nazis could soon be removed from their families and taken into care – in a bid to beat a rise in the glorification of Hitler and the Third Reich.

German authorities are becoming increasingly concerned with the number of summer camps and special schools brainwashing youngsters into worshipping a movement that killed six million Jews in the Holocaust.

A recent raid on one camp turned up jigsaw puzzles showing Germany’s pre-World War 2 borders and colouring books where children were encouraged to crayon in the moustache of Hitler.


Ron Paul: "Default Is Coming" Reply

Watch the video.


Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) explains why default by inflation is worse than default by not raising the debt ceiling.

Rep. Paul also talks about how the devaluing of the U.S. has led to record prices in gold bullion.

“Default is coming. The only argument that’s going on now is how to default, not send the checks out or just print the money. In all countries our size, they always print the money,” Paul said.

“They’re going to raise the debt limit, and then they’re going to print the money, and then they’ll default by inflation, and that’s much more dangerous than facing up to the facts of what’s happening today.”

Farrakhan Blasts the "Coalition of Demons" attacking Libya (June 15, 2011) Reply

Watch the full speech.


( – Minister Farrakhan exposed the U.S. and NATO’s criminal War Libya and Africa during a June 15, 2011 Press Conference at the UN Plaza Hotel. Also presenting were former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Human Rights Activist Viola Plummer and International Actitivst Cynthia McKinney.

We Just Lost Another Junkie 7

Article by Gavin McInnes. 

She should’ve gone to rehab…yes, yes, yes.


I hate when a famous junkie dies and we get empty gestures like, “We just lost a legend the likes of which we will never see again.” Why not say, “That cute English girl who became the personification of a walking mess took the whole thing too far and apparently OD’d on a cocktail of cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, and ketamine”? When celebrity roast-master Greg Giraldo died, all the Tweets were along the order of, “Greg was and will always be a legend RIP.” Nobody said, “Greg Giraldo just OD’d on Xanax and booze at the age of 44,” because that would be rude. Xanax is a heavy downer and when mixed with alcohol it can easily induce a coma, as it did with Greg. That side of the story is a little more important than remembering what a great guy he was, because it can save lives. Junkies aren’t as concerned about honoring the dead. I knew junkies in Vancouver who, upon hearing someone OD’d, would scramble for the phone trying to find out who the guy’s dealer was because if people are overdosing, it must be some good shit.


Tolerance: Not a Two-Way Street? Reply

Article by Jim Goad.


The rabidly politicized, mad-as-hell, accept-us-or-die quotient of gay Americans—at last count, somewhere between 97 to 99 percent of them—seem determined to prove that they can get just as offended as your average hillbilly breeder mountaineer, if not more so.

It’s as if they’re taking it to the streets, up into the hills, and down into the hollers to spread a simple message—“You think you can get offended, you stupid, hateful, one-toothed, inbred, Christ-worshiping rednecks? You ain’t seen an uptight bunch of whiny wah-wah emotionally retarded walking fetuses until you’ve tangled with us!”

Exhibit A: The highly publicized story of butch cunnilinguists Jennifer Tipton and Olivier Odom, the latter of whom on Tuesday apparently didn’t deem it an act of cultural provocation to attend Dolly Parton’s Dollywood Splash Country up in the generally Christian, generally conservative, generally heterosexual Appalachian Mountains while clad in a “[marriage is so gay]” sleeveless T-shirt that showcased Odom’s rippling biceps and tribal forearm tattoo.

At the entrance, a park official requested that Odom turn his her T-shirt inside-out in compliance with a park policy that bans potentially “offensive” apparel and body adornments. Odom complied, then filed a complaint with the park, and then apparently went crying to a receptive and empathetic press. Her partner Jennifer Tipton, whose voice isn’t nearly as deep nor her hair quite as short, said she found it “so offensive” that park officials found Odom’s muscle shirt so offensive. She also accused Splash Country of hypocrisy for not banning “rebel flags” and “offensive tattoos” among its other patrons.

“Clearly, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. So is the concept of whether acting like a barbarian when in Rome makes one an asshole.”


By Michael James. Yes, this is a parody…I hope. Hat tip to Jim Duncan.


There are however side effects associated with Holozac. It’s active ingredient Zionine has been shown to cause a pathological hatred of Palestinians and Muslims in general.

“It’s not for cartoonists or editor’s of Mossad-controlled newspapers,” Haggler explained. “We are also cautioning doctors not to prescribe to patients who have a habit of harming either themselves or complete strangers and who then blame that harm on imaginary Arab terrorists.”

Haggler’s colleagues also stress that giving the drug to Christians who have been artfully persuaded to believe a false, unscriptural, satanic doctrine known as the Zionist Dispensation would be sheer overkill.

“Cyrus Scofield and the Rapture crowd did to American Christians what this drug can do to the Holy Remnant,” says an Israeli team coordinator, smiling. “Pastors and Ministers in the United   States, who have deliberately confused the pristine Kingdom of God with a stretch of worthless real estate on a spinning ball of dirt, have all but made medical treatment with Holozac unnecessary. A Scofield Reference Bible believer on just one milligram of Zionine would make the Irgun death squad look like the Cub Scouts on a paper chase. Buying stock in Caterpillar Bulldozers would be a smart move. Here’s my broker’s phone number.”

Despite such reservations about possible side effects, the European Union has already invested 15 billion euros in what it describes as the most ambitious mental health campaign in modern times.

“We’re talking about targeted pre-emptive measures,” says an EU spokesman for Mental Hygiene and Correct Thinking.  “Holocaust Denial Syndrome begins at home and in the classroom. Does your child ask questions? Does he or she read books? Does he or she get bored with television news programmes and surf the Internet uncensored history sites and the truth about September 11? If the answer is ‘yes’ to any one of these painfully necessary questions, then your child should be treated  with Holozac immediately before his or her brain  has a chance to fully  develop its dangerous critical faculties.”

Esoteric Publishers, Crowley, and the ‘New Right’ Reply

A discussion of National-Anarchism and the New Right from a neo-pagan site. 

An interesting debate follows, including some comments from Troy Southgate.

Once again, many of the critics seem to miss the point. The core idea of movements like N-A, NR, anarcho-pluralism, and pan-secessionism is to preserve diversity and liberty while avoiding tyranny, war and conflict through decentralized pluralism and renunciation of ideological universalisms that must be seen as binding on all mankind at every time and place.

Rednecks with Guns and Other Anti-Racist Stories and Strategies 9

An interesting group whose leader was interviewed by the left-anarchist Denfenestrator.

They’re almost there.The only criticism I would have of this group is they haven’t yet got to the point where they reject ideological univeralism. Rather than try to convert Tea Partyers to their own ideology, it would be more constructive to simply identify what they have in common, leave the rest to the side, and agree to handle irreconcilable differences through voluntary association where possible, and mutual self-separation and peaceful co-existence otherwise.

The discussion thread that follows includes these comments about ATS:

What about the less orthodox National Anarchists?  You know, the ones that pretend to be just pragmatic anti-statists who want to assemble all wiling parties to smash our common enemy.  Looking at the blog Attack The System, whose slogan is “Pan-secessionism against the empire”, we find an extensive list of recommended websites.  These include Occidental Quarterly, Alain de Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, Folk and Faith (Christian Identity group),Texas Nationalist Movement, and Youth for Western Civilization.  It’s editor, Keith Preston, argues that a promising project for jump starting the Revolution would be a Julius Evola study group.

So there we have it.  The living with parents, the semi-activist, and the “maybe if I say I like the American Indian Movement too you’ll take me seriously” wings of the National Anarchist movement are all rooted in and continually engaged with fascist, racist thought.

Again, these comments reflect a fixation on ideological purity. The goal of pan-secessionism is to move past such fixations, not by expecting others to abandon their own ideals, as much as focusing on how to attack common enemies while handling genuine differences in a constructive way.

William F. Buckley interviews Ron Paul in 1988 Reply

From The American Conservative.


Todd Seavey has a surprising, if not altogether implausible, idea: “If Buckley had outlived the 2008 presidential campaign, I could imagine he might even have become an ardent Ron Paul fan in time, which would have helped speed the right’s education along immensely. He was anti-Iraq War, after all.” Well, John Derbyshire in 2007 also argued that the gulf between National Review‘s founder and the Texas congressman was not as great as might be thought, a sentiment Andrew Sullivan echoed.

I don’t agree, for reasons that the “Firing Line” episode below ought to make clear. But that didn’t stop me from hatching a plan when I worked for the Paul campaign in 2008 to net WFB’s endorsement. He had said some encouraging things about Paul, so I leaned on a friend of mine whom Buckley had begun to cultivate as a protege (he had many) to lobby for his imprimatur. We never went through with it, for the very good reason that WFB was failing fast — this was in mid-February, and Buckley died Feb. 28. If he had recovered, though, we would have put to the test whether his frustrations with conservative movement he had done so much to build would have led him to make a revolutionary endorsement.

It should be noted, though, that at the height of his prestige WFB was reluctant to support insurgent conservative candidates. In 1964, James Burnham had convinced him that Goldwater simply couldn’t win in November, which led Buckley to the brink of throwing National Review‘s support behind Nelson Rockefeller in the Republican primaries. If Goldwater lost in California, Buckley decided, NR would call for him to drop out. Bill Rusher, Bill Rickenbacker, and others were prepared to tender their resignations, though in the event Goldwater pulled through and Buckley relented.

Despite all that, there’s some reason to think WFB was getting more unconventional toward the end. Asked by Corey Robin in 2001 what kind of politics a young 21st-century William F. Buckley would embrace, he replied, “I’d be a socialist. A Mike Harrington socialist. I’d even say a communist.” He was mostly joking, but the remark suggests he was aware of how stale movement conservatism had become.

Anders Breivik and the Consequences of Far Right Propaganda 1

by Larry Gambone.


“Ideas have consequences” is a favorite mantra of the far-right. It’s usually sprung on some mildly pink college professor who happens to refer favorably to Marx in a lecture. “The ultimate result of the Marxist ideology you spout is the Gulag and Pol Pot”, bellows the right-wing pundit. Funny though, this same pundit would never suggest that Jesus is responsible for the Inquisition or Martin Luther for the Holocaust. But then consistency was never part of the right wing mind set.

However this very week, instead of a spurious, fabricated causal chain, with the Norwegian Massacre we have a real example of how ideas have consequences.. Over the last three decades there has been an endless right-wing propaganda barrage attacking liberals, leftists, socialists, immigrants, the poor and a host of other groups too numerous to mention. (1) This is not just a matter of saying “We disagree with leftists etc…” The right wing propagandists make out that the people they oppose are the enemy of God and man, are absolutely evil and subhuman, hardly better than child molesters.

Must we be surprised that as a result of this hate propaganda and demonization, that someone on the fringes of the far right picks up a gun and starts killing a bunch of those immigrant-loving leftist devils?

Now comes the right-wing response to the murders. “Not our fault”, “Don’t make political capital out of this tragedy.”, “Oh, he was crazy, doesn’t have anything to do with us.” We see that the people who bellow about ideas having consequences don’t really believe it after all. The slogan is only a stick to beat the left with. No surprise there though. I already mentioned that if they were consistent, they would claim Jesus responsible for the Inquisition. (2)

For a GUARDIAN take on this click


  1. Add feminists, pro-choice people, trade unionists, intellectuals, government employees, anarchists, neopagans and non-Christians, atheists and freethinkers, radical or liberal Christians, environmentalists, bicycle riders, and science in general to their hate list,

  2. Before some nitwit accuses me of thinking Jesus caused the Inquisition, I am only saying that it makes as much sense to claim Marx responsible for the gulag as it would to claim Jesus responsible for the Inquisition.

The Return of the Neocons’ Prodigal Son: Anders Behring Breivik and the Axis of Hate Reply

Article by Justin Raimondo.

This is a particularly insightful passage from the article:

Spencer is a fake-“scholar” whose innumerable polemics are all about the same thing: the intractable evil and danger posed by Islam. He believes there is a conspiracy to impose Sharia law on America, and annex the United States to a “global caliphate.” This is the stuff of pure fantasy, and yet anyone who takes it seriously and accepts its premises has to believe that the Muslim world must be challenged militarily – which is precisely what neoconservatives have been urging since well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And they succeeded in their mission, to a large degree: today we are embarked on a worldwide crusade which involves the invasion and occupation of a great deal of the Middle East. Breivik and his collaborators – if any – are simply taking it one step further, and in that they are more consistent than their neocon brethren, who prefer to have other people fight their wars of choice.

The neoconservative agenda [.pdf] is about one thing and one thing only: the desirability and necessity of a war to the death against the Muslim Enemy. Their relationship with Breivik is identical to the links between the “theoreticians” of yesterday’s New Left – Herbert Marcuse, Franz Fanon, etc. – and the activist rank-and-file, the college professors and the kids. Spencer is the theory: Breivik is the practice.”

Justiz Amerikan Style Reply

Article by Jacob Sullum.


The New York Times tellsthe story of Queens restaurateur Seemona Sumasar, who spent seven months in jail after being framed by her vengeful former boyfriend for a series of armed robberies that never happened. While police and prosecutors portray the ex-boyfriend as a criminal mastermind, Sumasar says the authorities were negligent:

When she insisted to the authorities that he had set her up, they belittled her claims….

“Why would a tiny woman with no criminal record, who worked 10 years on Wall Street, randomly hold up people at gunpoint at night dressed as a policewoman?” [Sumasar’s lawyer] asked….

Sumasar had a strong alibi, including cell phone records showing that calls were made from her phone at a casino in Connecticut on the day of the [imaginary] robbery….

Prosecutors said the scheme unraveled in December 2010—just weeks before Ms. Sumasar was to go on trial—when an informer told the police that Mr. Ramrattan [the ex-boyfriend] had staged the plot. The informer gave detectives a number for a cellphone owned by Mr. Ramrattan.

When they checked phone records, they discovered multiple calls to the false witnesses, who confessed to the police. They were charged with perjury….

“From the beginning I was presumed guilty—not innocent,” she said. “I felt like I never had a chance.”

“I can never have faith in justice in this country again.”

Sumasar, who was separated from her 12-year-old daughter and lost her house and her restaurant franchise while she was locked up, plans to sue the police departments in New York City and in Nassau County, where one of the fictitious robberies supposedly occurred.

Banking and the Confederacy “Graybacks”: A Forgotten Example of State Credit Reply

Article by K. R. Bolton.



The goodwill towards the Southern states that one might expect from monetary reformers has been clouded by the claim that the War of Secession was instigated by international bankers for the control of the USA, and specifically that it was the South that was for this purpose backed by the Rothschilds and other European banking dynasties in Europe. While monetary reformers often allude to Abraham Lincoln having issued state credit in the form of the “Greenbacks,” and therefore Lincoln has become something of an icon among those who advocate alternatives to the usurious world financial system, seldom realized is that the Confederacy issued its own “Graybacks,” and did not have any type of fellowship with international finance. The condemnation of the South often includes an anti-Semitic element, because the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P Benjamin, was Jewish, and from there flights of fancy roam free, including the claim that Benjamin was a “Rothschild agent” and even a that he was a “Rothschild relative.” This paper examines the claim as to whether the Rothschilds and other banking dynasties supported the South, and in particular examines the manner by which the Confederacy was really funded.

The “Grayback” served the Confederacy as the “Greenback” served the Union, and perhaps moreso, as the Confederacy was shut out of financial markets. It was a pragmatic move and one that better served the Confederate States of America (CSA) by force of circumstances than by going cap-in-hand to the international money-lenders, as most states then did and still do. Hence, the “Grayback” is an example of state credit used on a wide scale that allowed the functioning of an economy without recourse to usurious debt, and stands with other examples such as the use of Reserve Bank state credit by the 1935 New Zealand Labour Government.[i] Given the present widespread economic tumult caused by the compound interest intrinsic to the debt-finance system that controls much of the world, a concentration of alternative systems of banking and finance are of vital importance, but are presently problems seldom understood by the “Right.” This was not always the case, as exemplified by the writings of Ezra Pound[ii] and the “Social Justice” movement of Father Coughlin,[iii] et al.


Obama: The Best “Enemy” Money Can Buy Reply

Article by Kevin Carson.


Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn joins the long list of CEOs calling Barack Obama “anti-business,” denouncing him as “the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime.” Obama’s rhetoric is the kind of thing we hear only from “pure socialists.”

In February 3M CEO George Buckley called Obama’s instincts “Robin Hood-esque” and Obama himself “anti-business.”  In April right-wing billionaire and libertarian sugar daddy Charles Koch accused Obama of being an “egalitarian” who’d “internalized some Marxist models.” His brother, David Koch, added that he’d come under “anti-business, anti-free enterprise influences.” In May another CEO, Jim McNerney, accused Obama of a “fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America’s competitiveness since it became the world’s largest economy nearly 140 years ago.”

Actually, Obama is very much in the proud tradition of corporatist collusion between big business and big government on which the modern American economy was founded — by a rogues’ gallery of war profiteers and corporate welfare queens — 140 years ago. McNerney’s “capitalist principles” can be deduced from the business model of the company he heads: Boeing is very much a creature of the permanent warfare state.

Like the rest of them — including David Koch, who as a self-proclaimed “libertarian” should know better — McNerney doesn’t quite grasp the distinction between “anti-business” and “anti-market.” Obama is indeed anti-market. But he has a lot of company, most notably these pigs at the corporate trough who talk the most about the wonders of the “free market” in public and try to destroy it in private.

Never mind academic liberals and “progressive” politicians. Of course they’re anti-market. But they’re just hired help who’ve uncritically absorbed an ideology manufactured for public consumption by the CEOs and plutocrats. Dupes, in other words. Useful idiots.

The anti-market people who really count in the United States are all five hundred Fortune 500 CEOs and all four hundred or so billionaires. They spend most of their time scheming with government to throw a monkey wrench into the market, because without all the entry barriers, cartels, artificial property rights and artificial scarcity enforced by the state their monopoly rents would evaporate in a competitive market and they’d have to work for a living.

On the other hand, just how “anti-business” is Obama?

Despite the “anti-Wall Street” rhetoric that so chagrins all those grumbling CEOs, Obama’s TARP program — like Bush’s — amounts to using taxpayer money to inflate the bad assets of the big banks so they don’t have to mark them down to market value. After berating the health insurance companies, Obama pushed through a taxpayer-funded corporate welfare program for them just like Bush’s Medicare D gift to the drug companies. Man, I wish I had an enemy like that.

The Treasury Secretaryship has become a Goldman-Sachs Endowed Chair. Obama and Biden make “intellectual property” policy from the office — or maybe from on the lap — of Disney CEO Roger Iger. It’s hard to tell whether all the Assistant and Deputy Secretaries at the USDA are on their way to, or their way from, positions in the C-Suites and Boards at Cargill, ADM and Monsanto. “Executive Committee of the Ruling Class” has ceased to be a picturesque phrase from Marx; now it’s a rather prosaic description of Obama’s cabinet.

I wish Obama was as anti-Kevin Carson as he is “anti-business.” He can make as many speeches as he wants about how unethical I am, and how it was my greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess — just as long as he turns around and says “Here’s a check for $100 billion, Kevin.”

So either Wynn et al are stupid, or they’re liars. Based on what I’ve seen of the CEOs at all the companies I’ve ever worked for, I’d guess both.

The Missing Lesson From Norway: Never Trust a Man in Uniform 1

Article by William Norman Grigg.


Roughly a decade ago, Al Pacino starred in a movie entitled S1m0ne, a cyber-era updating of the Pygmalion myth in which a film director creates an uncannily realistic digital actress. Despite the fact that “Simone” was a computer-rendered composite fantasy, the lustrous blonde enchantress becomes a global pop culture sensation – a profitable illusion sustained through increasingly desperate acts of misdirection on the part of the director.

It’s tempting to think that accused Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik is a S1m0ne-style digital fantasy drawn to specifications provided by Morris Dees’ so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. Breivik used social networking sites to create a cyber-persona seemingly made to order for left-leaning “watchdog” groups. Available photographs depict the blonde, stereotypically Nordic Breivik as if he were a dress-up doll, his face oddly unmarked and expressionless as he poses in a variety of guises – including Freemasonic garb and a scuba outfit.

In similar fashion, his recorded ideological pronouncements – the quotes attributed to him in the aftermath of the killing spree in Oslo and Utoya, and his bloated “manifesto” – could be the work of someone determined to embody every detail of the familiar caricature of the right-wing “hate criminal.”

Breivik may be exactly what he appears to be – a murderous nationalist ideologue determined to precipitate a European culture war that would end with the expulsion of Muslims from the continent and the mass liquidation of “cultural Marxists.” Brievik’s uncredited borrowings from the “Unabomber” manifesto underscore the possibility – however distant – that he, like Ted Kaczynski, could be a product of a CIA-style “behavior modification” program, or a pawn in a false-flag operation. Whatever we eventually learn about Breivik’s background and motivations, one detail of the killing spree he allegedly perpetrated offers a timely and critical lesson practically everybody has missed: We should never trust an armed man wearing the costume of a police officer.


Pitchforks and Torches in Orlando Reply

Article by Joe Bob Briggs.


NEW YORK—I tried. I really tried. I wanted to be the only person in America who didn’t know anything about the Caylee Anthony murder case.

I intentionally avoided it whenever it would come on cable TV. I have such an aversion to that caterwauling condescending public scold of a schoolmarm named Nancy Grace that I took Headline News Network off my remote control so that it automatically skipped to the next channel anytime I was surfing. Sometime in the past year they apparently gave Nasal Nancy a 24-hour show dedicated to the reinstatement of flesh-flaying, foot-roasting, and iron-maiden impalement for all criminal defendants. Her acolytes spread Nancy Graceisms all over the Internet through articles predicated on the idea that innocent victims’ blood has morphed into vengeance-blogging directed by the Almighty. But as I said, I managed to step aside. Whenever someone would post a photo of Casey Anthony with some slogan like, “Look at this slut partying while her baby is dead,” I would move onto the next subject or delete the email without answering.

And then when they finally got through the investigation, the arrest, the years of pre-trial hearings, the actual trial, and the verdict, I thought I was finally safe.

How wrong I was.


A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway Reply

Article by Pat Buchanan.


“Like a fire bell in the night,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, “this momentous question … awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”

Jefferson was writing of the sudden resurgence of the slavery issue in the debate on Missouri’s entry into the Union, as foreshadowing a civil war.

And that massacre in Oslo, where a terrorist detonated a fertilizer bomb to decapitate the government and proceeded to a youth camp to kill 68 children of Norway’s ruling elite, is a fire bell in the night for Europe. For Anders Behring Breivik is no Islamic terrorist.

He was born in Norway and chose as his targets not Muslims whose presence he detests, but the Labor Party leaders who let them into the country, and their children, the future leaders of that party.

Though Breivik is being called insane, that is the wrong word.

Breivik is evil—a cold-blooded, calculating killer—though a deluded man of some intelligence, who in his 1,500-page manifesto reveals a knowledge of the history, culture and politics of Europe.


Between Thought and Action in Norway Reply

Article by Jim Goad.


When I first read Ted Kaczynski’s Industrial Society and its Future, better known as The Unabomber Manifesto, I was impressed with how logically dispassionate it was, especially its devastating dissection of leftist masochism and hostility. Each paragraph—sequentially numbered as if they were biblical verses—built upon the previous one with mathematical precision, and I found myself nodding along with Kaczynski’s premise that technology was potentially the biggest threat to personal freedom in world history.

And then, walking placidly through all that ice-cold logic, I stubbed my toe on this line: “In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.”

A Norwegian police officer who assisted in Friday’s arrest of Anders Behring Breivik described Breivik’s demeanor as “cold as ice,” an especially disquieting observation when one considers he was talking about a man who’d just claimed the Spree Killing World Record by piling up at least 76 bodies—eight via a fertilizer car bomb in downtown Oslo and 68 using automatic weapons at a Labour Party youth camp on Utøya Island.


How the U.S. government uses its media servants to attack real journalism Reply

Article by Glenn Greenwald.


“The US has stopped running its global network of secret prisons, CIA director Leon Panetta has announced. ‘CIA no longer operates detention facilities or black sites,’ Mr Panetta said in a letter to staff” – BBC, April 9, 2009


Earlier this week, the truly intrepid investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill published in The Nation one of the most significant political exposés of the year.  Entitled “the CIA’s Secret Sites in Somalia,” the article documented that the CIA uses and effectively controls a secret prison in Mogadishu, where foreign nationals who are rendered off the streets of their countries (at the direction of the U.S.) are taken (along with Somali nationals) to be imprisoned with no due process and interrogated (by U.S. agents).  Although Somali government agents technically operate the facility, that is an obvious ruse: “US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners” and are “there full-time,” Scahill reported.  On Democracy Now on Wednesday, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed it has no knowledge of this secret prison.

This arrangement, as Scahill told me yesterday, is consistent with standard Obama administration practice: “they continue even the most controversial Bush terrorism policies by having some other government technically operate it so they can keep their fingerprints off it.”  Indeed, the administration has even resorted to this playbook by using “torture by proxy” — as we saw when the Kuwait government, with at least the complicity if not direction of the U.S., detained and beat American teenager Gulet Mohamed during interrogation sessions.  Just yesterday, a federal judge “reacted skeptically” to the Obama DOJ’s demands for dismissal of a lawsuit (on secrecy grounds) brought by an American citizen imprisoned for four months in Africa, where “U.S. officials threatened him with torture, forced disappearance and other serious harm unless he confessed to ties with al-Qaida in Somalia.”


The Crusader: Anders Breivik as ideological blowback Reply

Article by Justin Raimondo.


It had to happen: the rise of a “counter-jihadist” terrorist outfit that is the mirror image of al-Qaeda. That it first arose in Norway, rather than, say, in the US, is just a coincidence, although I’m sure Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the Norwegian mass murder in Utoya, has his American collaborators, as he claimed in his manifesto, “2083: A Declaration of European Independence,” [.pdf] and an accompanying video. Indeed, a good many of the sources he cites in “2083″ – which is basically a compendium of previously published works by others – are American. Material from David Horowitz’s website,, figures prominently, along with articles taken verbatim from the Horowitz-affiliated “Jihad Watch,” run by professional hater and make-believe “scholar” Robert Spencer.

Breivik’s “book” is a mishmash, half diary of his careful preparations for the attack thrown together with anti-Muslim materials and boilerplate conservative rhetoric about the importance of faith, family, and community – Breivik lifts an entire section of a screed on “Cultural Conservatism” by the late Paul Weyrich – totaling well over a thousand pages. Thankfully, we don’t have to plough through this disjointed “compendium,” as he calls it – which shows signs of being hastily thrown together in preparation for his international debut as the Norwegian Timothy McVeigh, just like his Facebook page and his Twitter account. Breivik created a much more coherent video version which gives us a lot more clues about why he murdered 90-plus (at last count) of his fellow Norwegians in the name of fighting Islam.

In the video, Breivik targets the Enemy, which he calls “cultural Marxism.” So you thought communism failed with the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe? Wrong! In reality – according to Breivik – the Marxists, under the banner of the Frankfurt School theorists, infiltrated the mainstream political parties, academia, and even exercised a dominant influence on the “global capitalists.” Their goal: the eradication of European cultural identity, to be subsumed under a multi-culturalist “EUSSR.” The present rulers of the West are cultural “traitors,” who are conspiring openly with Islamists to reestablish the old Ottoman Empire in Europe and pave the way for the “Islamization” of the entire continent.

The second part of the video details the threat posed by an inherently aggressive and implacable Islam, the long history of Islamic imperialism, and the submission of the subject peoples to “dhimmitude.” This section relies heavily on the writings of the professional Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Andrew G. Bostom, Bernard Lewis, etc., that reads like the table of contents for a routine edition of Horowitz’s online magazine. It is neoconservatism, of the old cold war variety, with the only difference being that International Islam has taken the place of International Communism as our unsleeping foe.

Part three of the video is the most successful and creative: it presents a pantheon of heroes – every European military figure or ruler who ever fought a battle against the Ottomans – from Charles Martel to Vlad the Impaler, and even including Czar Nicholas II. I have to add that all this is accompanied by soaring “Celtic”-sounding music, like something out of the Lord of the Rings score: interspersed with images of Crusaders, and such historical figures as El Cid, Richard the Lionhearted, and events such as the Battle of Tours and the Ottoman siege of Vienna, this section links the sympathetic viewer to a usable past, an heroic tradition of which he can feel a part. This segues easily into the fourth and final part, which is chiefly exhortatory – a call to action. The cultural Marxist “traitors” must be hunted down and exterminated: he is very clear about this. A Cultural Marxist Hunting Permit is depicted, so as to make Breivik’s strategic principle unmistakable. These new “Crusaders,” then, are to be an army of assassins – a “Christian” Western version of al-Qaeda.

The similarity of Osama bin Laden’s vision and Breivik’s is remarkable, right down to the glorification of martyrdom which prefaces part three of the video. It is as if someone had sat down and deliberately limned bin Laden and the theoreticians of jihadism, inverting the ends but consciously imitating the means and the Manichean mindset. This is where the real passion comes across, where the viewer is asked to identify himself as an heroic figure – all this kind of appeal lacks is a promise of virgins in the afterlife. However, the powerful emotional punch packed by this very effective propaganda ploy contrasts sharply with the odd, jerrybuilt nature of Breivik’s rationale for his murderous enterprise – as if the involved ideological narrative is almost an afterthought to the actual deed. After all, Breivik rails endlessly against Muslims – but winds up murdering Norwegians, none of whom were Muslim. I don’t quite know what to make of this, except that the whole thing seems rather contrived, although to what end is unclear.

What is clear, however, is that the “Knights Templar Europe” is not merely the imaginary construct of a deranged mind, but an actual organization that seems to have been founded at a meeting in London which Breivik attended in 2002. He claims to have collaborators, and he specifically mentions one “European-American” who attended the founding meeting. Norwegian police are saying he acted alone, but this seems impossible: he began preparations for the attack in 2009, and the sheer logistics of carrying out such an operation – undetected – would argue that he had help.

It also appears as if Breivik has links to the English Defense League, a virulent gang of violent skinheads who target Muslims and have been gaining strength in the Clockwork Orange-y Britain of today. Financed by British businessman Alan Lake, the EDL has been endorsed by the American “counter-jihadists” grouped around “Stop the Islamization of America” and its European affiliate: Breivik’s agenda was eerily prefigured by Lake, who stated on Norwegian television that “such people should be executed,” referring to British Muslims and presumably others he considers “seditious.”

For years, neoconservatives have been telling us the decadent West is no match for the holy warriors of Islam, and what is needed is a revival of the Crusader spirit so that we can defeat our Eternal Enemy once and for all. We in the West must be put on a permanent war footing, they tell us, in order to put “an end to evil,” as two of them put it in a book title. Like the neocons, Breivik and the EDL are staunch supporters of Israel: the Israeli flag flies at EDL rallies, and the Jewish state comes in for undiluted praise in the Knights Templar manifesto.

Before Breivik was identified as the culprit, neocon columnist Jennifer Rubin rushed into print with an assessment by two of her fellow neocon “experts” – Gary Schmitt and Thomas Joscelyn – that this was the work of al-Qaeda, and concluded:

“This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists…. Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.”

Well, it is a sobering reminder, but not in the way Rubin intended: it’s a reminder that ideas have consequences. It’s not surprising someone took neoconservative propaganda seriously enough to go the terrorist route: Breivik is merely carrying out the program advocated by the David Horowitz’s, the Robert Spencers, the Pam Gellers of this sad and sorry world. The one difference is that Breivik and his fellow Knights are taking direct action, without bothering to employ the agency of government.