“2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
“2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”
LINK removed at the request of earth_as_one.

The above document was written by that nutjob who murdered about 80 people in Oslo recently. I refuse to type their name. However I think its important for everyone to be aware of what that person was thinking before and during their atrocity. What is scary is that IMO, many people share his hate filled ideology regarding Islam and Muslims. Opinions similar to this nutjob have been expressed by cable news pundits and members of this forum. The root cause of this atrocity is anti-Muslim demonizing propaganda which is rampant in Western Societies including Canada. This sick person is a symptom of a greater problem which will lead to more atrocities in the future if we don't deal with the growing problem of media driven Islamphobia.

BTW, I am not suggesting that everyone who has these opinions is going to senselessly murder innocent people. But I do think that irrational fear of Islam and Muslims is a serious problem and its far too common. This monster's violent acts are an extreme example of where that irrational hatred leads. The fact that our media is de-emphasizing and/or ignoring this nutjob's ideology is part of the problem.

Everyone who shares this nutjob's ideology should take a step back and closely examine their beliefs. If you find yourself agreeing with this monster, you should probably seek help before you hurt someone:

So here are some selected cut and pastes from that crazy person's manifesto to give you an idea of what he was thinking.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”

The compendium, - “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence” - documents
through more than 1000 pages that the fear of Islamisation is all but irrational.

It covers the following main topics:
1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began
3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad
movements)
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the
coming decades
5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8
different political fronts

irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing
us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is
increasing annually.

It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to
preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing
Islamisation.

Examples of falsification and apologist rhetoric include:
· Exaggerated claims of Muslim cultural and scientific contributions.
· The Ottoman Empire was tolerant.
· The, “Jewish experience” in the Ottoman Empire “...was a calm, peaceful, and a fruitful
one..”.
· Balkan Christian boys could acquire great social advancement through “recruitment” into
the Ottoman devshirme system.
· The Armenian Genocide never happened. It was rather a struggle between two peoples for
the possession of a single homeland.
· Muslim Andalusia (Moorish Spain) is often pointed out by Muslim apologists as a kind of
multicultural wonderland, in which Jews and Christians were permitted by the Islamic
government to rise through the ranks of learning and government administration.
· Jihad means personal struggle
· Islam is a religion of peace
· Christianity and Islam are equal in terms of historic atrocities
· Maronite Christians (Lebanese Christians) falsely claim to be victims.

95% of today’s Journalists, editors, publishers are pro-
Eurabians (support European multiculturalism). The same goes for 85% of Western
European politicians and more than 90% of EU parliamentarians.

These agreements, completely rewriting European history books to make them more Islamfriendly
and gradually silencing "Islamophobia" as racism, are being implemented even
now.

Many nominal Muslims have retained some vague generalities about morality from
the Quran, and they normally go by their own conscience and sensibility without
ever developing the doctrinally prescribed hostility towards non-Muslims. These
good people, although bad Muslims, can ignore but not change Islamic doctrine.
They cannot prevent the Quranic message of hatred from infecting at least some
of the more susceptible among their brethren and perhaps even their children or
grandchildren in the future.

Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into Dhimmitude
(as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage
new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction.

The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging
violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.
There are also straightforward calls for terror.

violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam

1400 years of Islamic Jihad which resulted in countless genocides
of more than 300 million people, and the enslavement and forceful conversion of more than
300 million)

Islam is
less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent
state of war with non-Islamic civilisations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy
texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those
cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto
state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission. The
misbegotten term "Islamo-fascism" is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism
that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.

The spectacular acts of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are but
the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging
since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD and that continues apace
today.

even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on
Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism
would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term
approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam
closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasised that
Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while
Islam proper remains permanently hostile.

religious violence is written into Islam's DNA

violent passages in the Bible certainly do no amount to a standing order to
commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge
collection of documents written by different people at different times in different
contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other
hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of
Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and
killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict
literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to
its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that
Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and
despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.

Who will willingly walk a saint’s path involving pain, sacrifice and martyrdom if there is no
distinction between a paedophile rapist murderer and Saint George of Lydda?

Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The
unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been fourteen centuries: violent,
intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or
decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilisation.
Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given; only then will we be able to come up
with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.

It should not be surprising that a violent political ideology is proving so attractive to
much of the world. The attractive power of fascist ideas has been proven through history.
Islam combines the interior comfort provided by religious faith with the outward power of
a world-transforming political ideology.

The essence of multiculturalism is that all cultures and religions are “equal”. In this
context our Western governments launched a great “campaign of deception” against their
own people with the goal of creating a falsified version of the Islamic and European
Civilisation, in order to make them equal.

One of the common elements to all
Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to
conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law.

The very word
Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans
have already become Muslims, though they do not realise it or do not want to admit it.
Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-
Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the
rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit.
Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is
related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to
submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate
them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their
view everyone must submit.
This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of
European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them.

An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the
West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim
immigration as a sign of weakness.

We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight
for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future
generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies,
not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational
progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.

We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of
this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading
to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths.
Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the
community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to
breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should
not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims.

People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims
about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Groups of
dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam,
emphasising the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent
state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman,
religious deception.

The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro-Islamic
thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have,
but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge.
And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged
and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defence starts in
Jerusalem.

Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a
threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight
together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural
Marxists/multiculturalists.

>>>>>>>>

eao: I think you get the idea of what this person was thinking. What's really scary is how many people share his ideololgy. Compare the above with a recent posts on this forum by one person regarding Islam:
....do a comparative body count of innocents killed by so-called "Christians" and followers of the "Religion of Peace" in terror attacks??

...Mohammed, in comparison, raped and murdered his way across the Arabian Peninsula, inciting hatred, predicting the mass slaughter of Jews, and taking a six year old wife.

...A recent poll showed 73% of Palestinians approve of the idea of genocide against the Jews.............as expressed in the Hadith.

....Most Palestians support killing Jews, reject 2-state solution

...Islam is as genocidal as Nazism.

...The mosque that was to be built near the site of the WTC is partially financed by fundamentalist Sauds.....the same people that were involved in the 9-11 attacks as a group.

...The very fact the Muslims involved refuse to consider any other venue shows their disrespect, in fact, they are spitting on the graves of close to 3,000 people.

Nobody blames all Muslims, we blame Islam, a religion inspired by a war-mongering pedophile rapist......what would you expect of his followers????


As for your comparison of my ideology and that of the monster, I suggest you go **** yourself. No other comment is possible to that particular insult.
eao: I have no problem seeing similarities in ideology, beliefs and irrational hatred toward Muslims, but perhaps I'm biased. Can anyone else see any similarities?

BTW, my post is not intended as a personal attack against anyone. These posts were just the most convenient to find quickly. This forum is full of Islamaphobic rants similar to the Oslo nutjob's rants above. I would suggest that people consider where their hate filled ideology regarding Muslims leads and make a conscience decision to seek out Muslims and make personal contact with them. When you start to see Muslims as fellow human beings, you might loose your irrational fear and hatred of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
There is a large ideological divide between people willing to mass murder children and people who find it among the worst crimes possible. That divide is greater than the one between Islamophobes and Islam-apologists. You have more in common with non-violent Islamophobes than you do with anyone willing to mass murder children.

As proof that this man was just a lunatic randomly piecing together incongruous ideologies, it has been pointed out that he was a fan of Winston Churchill. But knowing anything about history, it's easy to point out how this guy has more in common with Churchill than most of us do. Winston Churchill is well-known for his anti-fascist, and anti-communist rhetoric and his support for democracy. I would agree with him in that way. But he was also a racist and an imperialist and more importantly a mass murderer of innocents.

If I were to use the same logic you just used in the OP, I could find pro-democracy and anti-fascist quotes on this forum and compare them to those of Winston Churchill. Then I could point out that Churchill oversaw the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people in Hamburg and Dresden and advocated the use of chemical weapons on Iraqis, and this is what democratic rhetoric leads to.

Or better yet, I could find anti-Zionist posts made by you - things you've said that even I myself agree with - and compare them to the statements of Islamic terrorists.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
There is a large ideological divide between people willing to mass murder children and people who find it among the worst crimes possible. That divide is greater than the one between Islamophobes and Islam-apologists. You have more in common with non-violent Islamophobes than you do with anyone willing to mass murder children.

As proof that this man was just a lunatic randomly piecing together incongruous ideologies, it has been pointed out that he was a fan of Winston Churchill. But knowing anything about history, it's easy to point out how this guy has more in common with Churchill than most of us do. Winston Churchill is well-known for his anti-fascist, and anti-communist rhetoric and his support for democracy. I would agree with him in that way. But he was also a racist and an imperialist and more importantly a mass murderer of innocents.

If I were to use the same logic you just used in the OP, I could find pro-democracy and anti-fascist quotes on this forum and compare them to those of Winston Churchill. Then I could point out that Churchill oversaw the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people in Hamburg and Dresden and advocated the use of chemical weapons on Iraqis, and this is what democratic rhetoric leads to.

Or better yet, I could find anti-Zionist posts made by you - things you've said that even I myself agree with - and compare them to the statements of Islamic terrorists.

You almost got a greenie for that............not that you would (or should) care........in fact I may just go back and give you one anyway.

Winston Churchill a murderer! Perish the thought.......

World War Two was a total war. When war became such that the totality of the industrial production of a nation is turned towards the perpetuation of the war machine, then the producers of same become targets. Unpleasant but true.

You would perhaps have preferred we carried on the war as it was in the first days.....when a British pilot was taken to task for throwing out bales of pamphlets over Berlin without first opening them.....because they might have landed on someone as a bale and hurt them.

Well, so would I, if the alternative were not us all goose-stepping and speaking German. And baking Jews.

As for Iraq, he expressed his willingness to use gas........but it never happened. AND it was proposed by him before the treaty banning its use as a weapon.........
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
There is a large ideological divide between people willing to mass murder children and people who find it among the worst crimes possible. That divide is greater than the one between Islamophobes and Islam-apologists. You have more in common with non-violent Islamophobes than you do with anyone willing to mass murder children.

As proof that this man was just a lunatic randomly piecing together incongruous ideologies, it has been pointed out that he was a fan of Winston Churchill. But knowing anything about history, it's easy to point out how this guy has more in common with Churchill than most of us do. Winston Churchill is well-known for his anti-fascist, and anti-communist rhetoric and his support for democracy. I would agree with him in that way. But he was also a racist and an imperialist and more importantly a mass murderer of innocents.

If I were to use the same logic you just used in the OP, I could find pro-democracy and anti-fascist quotes on this forum and compare them to those of Winston Churchill. Then I could point out that Churchill oversaw the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people in Hamburg and Dresden and advocated the use of chemical weapons on Iraqis, and this is what democratic rhetoric leads to.

Or better yet, I could find anti-Zionist posts made by you - things you've said that even I myself agree with - and compare them to the statements of Islamic terrorists.

This nutjob probably didn't start out with an intent to commit an atrocity. I'd even go so far as to say that this nutjob probably would have found his actions abhorrent before 9/11. They had an intolerant Muslim hating philosophy for a long time and its roots can be traced to rampant Islamphobia in our MSM. Over the last 10 years this nutjob followed his hate filled ideology down a very slippery path for years and eventually it led to this atrocity. Many people on this forum should recognize the sign posts on that path in the nutjob's manifesto.

I'm not saying that rabid Muslim hating intolerance will always lead to violence or to this degree of violence, but violence is a possible outcome and Oslo is not the only place where someone with a Muslim hating ideology might commit atrocities. I can reference many examples:

AUSTIN, Texas - Texas on Wednesday executed a man for killing a store clerk near Dallas in 2001 in what he had called a "patriotic" act of retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Mark Stroman, 41, was convicted of entering the store where Vasudev Patel was working on Sept 21, 2001, demanding money from the register, and then shooting him in the chest.
He admitted to at least three attacks in the weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, all on men he believed to be of Middle Eastern descent.
CANOE -- CNEWS: - Texas executes 9/11 revenge killer

Most people recognize anti-Semiticism as evil and most are rightly quick to criticize it. Yet when someone expresses a similar hate filled ideology regarding Muslims, far too many people are silent, or worse agree. That's a problem in my opinion.

BTW, your belief that I am anti-semitic or rabidly hate Jews is a product of pro-death and destruction propaganda which promotes the common misperception that all criticism of the Zionist State of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. FYI, I am not even against Zionism. I am against believing that God gave one group of people the right to violently ethnic cleanse a region of another group of people. I am against all the resulting war crimes and crimes against humanity which resulted from this belief. I would support Zionism if the people left voluntarily without coercion. The amount of money spent supporting the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Zionist state of Israel could have bought Palestine many times over. If Zionism accomplished its goals non-violently with the willing cooperation of the people already living there, I'd support it. I might even have donated money.
 
Last edited:

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
The Churchill thing is for another thread, which I would love to take part in.



This nutjob probably didn't start out with an intent to commit an atrocity. I'd even go so far as to say that this nutjob probably would have found his actions abhorrent before 9/11. They had an intolerant Muslim hating philosophy for a long time and its roots can be traced to rampant Islamphobia in our MSM. Over the last 10 years this nutjob followed his hate filled ideology down a very slippery path for years and eventually it led to this atrocity. Many people on this forum should recognize the sign posts on that path in the nutjob's manifesto.

I'm not saying that rabid Muslim hating intolerance will always lead to violence or to this degree of violence, but violence is a possible outcome and Oslo is not the only place where someone with a Muslim hating ideology might commit atrocities. I can reference many examples:

CANOE -- CNEWS: - Texas executes 9/11 revenge killer

Most people recognize anti-Semiticism as evil and most are rightly quick to criticize it. Yet when someone expresses a similar hate filled ideology regarding Muslims, far too many people are silent, or worse agree. That's a problem in my opinion.

BTW, your belief that I am anti-semitic or rabidly hate Jews is a product of believing that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. FYI, I am not even against Zionism. I am against believing that God gave one group of people the right to violently ethnic cleanse a region of another group of people. I am against all the resulting war crimes and crimes against humanity which resulted from this belief. I would support Zionism if the people left voluntarily without coercion. The amount of money spent supporting the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Zionist state of Israel could have bought Palestine many times over. If Zionism accomplished its goals non-violently with the willing cooperation of the people already living there, I'd support it. I might even have donated money.

It's almost as if you didn't even read my post.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Too many edits I suppose... I answered your response. You just didn't understand it.\

Let me simplify.

I agree with you that people who believe in non-violence have more in common with each other than people who believe in violence.

I disagree with you regarding the benign-ness of people-phobias or that I am I am guilty of any. I don't apologize for any violent acts because I don't support any. I condemn all violent acts and I also condemn this violent act.

I condemn all forms of hatred.

I disagree with you that this person was "randomly piecing together incongruous ideologies". Anyone reading his manifesto can see this man was following an extreme sense of hatred. I have a problem with that. If this hatred was directed at Jews, I'm sure you'd see the connection. The only people who can't see this plainly are people who share his hatred of Muslims or those who find it rational.

Perhaps you'd like to express your opinion regarding the cultural genocide threat posed by Muslim infiltration of our society and the need to act quickly and decisively?
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
I disagree with you regarding the benign-ness of people-phobias or that I am I am guilty of any. I don't apologize for any violent acts because I don't support any. I condemn all violent acts and I also condemn this violent act.

Did I accuse you of having any phobias? Did I suggest you apologize for violence? How are you disagreeing with me on something I never said?

I disagree with you that this person was "randomly piecing together incongruous ideologies".
I didn't say that either. In fact, I said the opposite.

It's odd that you would accuse me of not understanding your response, when it seems that you're imagining I said things when I clearly did not. I understood your response. I just didn't understand how it relates to my post. It's obvious now that the problem is that you were responding to an imagined post of mine.


I said that your logic could be extended to any number of ideologies and that abhorrent acts of violence have been committed in the name of them all. People who supported ending fascism in Europe mass murdered the innocent citizens of fascist states for that cause. People who support Palestinian self-determination have mass murdered innocents in Israel for that cause.

And I have seen rhetoric used on this forum against American foreign policy which is identical to the rhetoric used by Al Qaeda in justifying the attacks on 9/11.

You're arguing that some posters' anti-Islamic rhetoric is similar to that of this Norwegian terrorist and that because of this, one should stop and think about where their ideology may lead. I'm saying that this logic can be applied to many more causes, including your own rhetoric against Israel.

You can incessantly assert that you are against violence, and I'll believe you, but your faulty logic still applies to your own rhetoric. You have two options: continue to plead a special case that this blanket insinuation wouldn't apply to you or admit that the logic was faulty and it doesn't apply anywhere.

Or the third option: some tangential argument about double standards when it comes to antisemitism and Islamophobia and "did I mention I condemn all violence?" and so on and so on with all your favourite tropes, not actually addressing even you own OP.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
What I am saying is that this person had an irrational hatred of Muslims. This person could have chosen any number of targets. He chose Norway's political leaders and their families.

Would it have made a difference if his irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam lead to violence against "Jews that support multiculturalism"?

Irrational hatred of Muslims is promoted by our main stream media and strong anti-Islam and Muslim prejudices are rampant in Norway, Canada and elsewhere. In fact, the MSM's current de-emphasis of this man's irrational, hatred towards Muslims is part of the problem.

Try as you like to divert and distract... this is about the Muslim form of antisemitism.

I would agree that this person is not a Christian extremist. He would more accurately be described as a NeoCon Extremist:

ZAMAN
the manifesto that nutjob was very much influenced by the ideology of the US neoconservatives. He feels that nutjob is neither rightist, nationalist nor a neo-Nazi but someone who has remained under the influence of neocons. “He sees Islam as a threat to the world just like neocons do,” said Kıvanç.Yeni Akit’s Abdurrahman Dilipak thinks the blue-eyed, blond-haired man triggered the deterioration of the great Western image with the pull of his weapon’s trigger. He said nutjob was neither the first nor will he be the last man to have such feelings in Europe, as was also mentioned in the 1,500-page manifesto.
What led us to Breivik?

btw, I recommend this Turkish news source:
Today's Zaman, your gateway to Turkish daily news
 
Last edited:

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
What I am saying is that this person had an irrational hatred of Muslims. This person could have chosen any number of targets. He chose Norway's political leaders and their families.

If only you'd left at that.

Irrational hatred of Muslims is promoted by our main stream media and strong anti-Islam and Muslim prejudices are rampant in Norway, Canada and elsewhere. In fact, the MSM's current de-emphasis of this man's irrational, hatred towards Muslims is part of the problem.
Funny, look in any of the anti-multiculturalism threads on this forum and you'll see the exact opposite accusation made. There are several of them currently active on the forum. Have a look. In one of these threads a poster accuses A&W commercials as being part of the multicultural conspiracy. It's good for a laugh. It seems to me that mainstream media is always against the ideology of whomever uses the term or the now popular acronym. Forgive me for not taking any of you seriously.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Canada is a multicultural society, something opposed by that nutjob in Oslo and many people here on this forum.

Many people who posted in this string share the same hate filled ideology as that nutjob:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/98589-more-needless-multiculturalism-problems-immigrants.html

The Oslo nutjob was obsessed with Muslim cultural genocide threat and the Islamization of Europe. His extreme hate of Islam and Muslims was a reflection of his extreme neo-con ideology. The people he references to back up his irrational hatred of Muslims and the cultural genocide threat to Europe poised by Islam are well known neo-cons. Most of his viewpoints are shared by neo-cons. If he hadn't murdered all those people, he'd probably be a welcome guest on FoxNews for an anti-Islam hatefest.

If every reference to Muslims and Islam was replaced with Jews and Judaism in this nutjob's manifest, I'm certain the MSM media would have no trouble identifying this nutjob as anti-Semitic. I'm certain that this atrocity would cause people to talk about the evils of anti-Semitism. But since his irrational hatred was directed at Muslims, and shared by neo-con political leaders and news pundits in the US, Canada and Europe... its a non-issue.
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I fail to see how this guy is any different than the muslim clerics screaming "Death to America" and "Death to the infidels" . Same mentality.
AS far as mulit-culti goes, it is a bad idea. THe US idea of melting pot is superior in making a cohesive society. I was born hers as were my parents. That makes me a Canadian, no hyphen required.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I agree Tax slave regrading irrational hatred of the US and the West which is common throughout the middle east. It is the same problem as this nutjob's irrational hatred of Muslims.

I notice you only complain about one problem, but not the other. Why aren't you concerned about irrational hatred of Muslims which is a common problem here in Canada?

I suggest you read nutjob's manifesto. I posted a link to it in the first post. I bet you and nutjob have more in common with each other, besides your shared views regarding multiculturalism. His hatred of Muslims and Islam led to him murdering about 80 innocent people. Where is your shared hatred of Muslims and Islam leading you?

BTW, I am not suggesting you are as extreme as the Oslo nutjob, only that irrational hatred of Muslims is a problem in our society and you may have this problem. Read the manifest (or at least the summary of it). See the first post in this thread. If you find yourself agreeing with most of what nutjob wrote, I suggest you get help.
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
There is a large ideological divide between people willing to mass murder children and people who find it among the worst crimes possible. That divide is greater than the one between Islamophobes and Islam-apologists. You have more in common with non-violent Islamophobes than you do with anyone willing to mass murder children.

As proof that this man was just a lunatic randomly piecing together incongruous ideologies, it has been pointed out that he was a fan of Winston Churchill. But knowing anything about history, it's easy to point out how this guy has more in common with Churchill than most of us do. Winston Churchill is well-known for his anti-fascist, and anti-communist rhetoric and his support for democracy. I would agree with him in that way. But he was also a racist and an imperialist and more importantly a mass murderer of innocents.

If I were to use the same logic you just used in the OP, I could find pro-democracy and anti-fascist quotes on this forum and compare them to those of Winston Churchill. Then I could point out that Churchill oversaw the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people in Hamburg and Dresden and advocated the use of chemical weapons on Iraqis, and this is what democratic rhetoric leads to.

Or better yet, I could find anti-Zionist posts made by you - things you've said that even I myself agree with - and compare them to the statements of Islamic terrorists.

Churchill was a great man indeed, but I wouldn't eulogize him too much:

"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."
- Winston Churchill, 1930
As you can see, he was also an imperialist.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
I notice you only complain about one problem, but not the other. Why aren't you concerned about irrational hatred of Muslims which is a common problem here in Canada?

How about because they are side effects of a common cause? If various Muslim groups were integrated into society better, there would be greater understanding and tolerance. The fact that multi-culturalism encourages groups to stand apart and isolate themselves from others in the name of "protecting their cultural identity", only encourages the divides that create distrust and later fear & hatred.

Honestly, I don't think there is an irrational fear of Muslims in most of Canada. I can't really say for sure, as I lived in Alberta for the vast majority of my life and most of the people I was in contact with were westerners. There isn't widespread Islamophobia out there. People look with disdain on the acts of the terrorists, whether it was the hijacking of ships/planes in the 70s and 80s or the suicide bombers of today, and people generally buy into the government line as far as military actions go, but as long as Ali, Mahmoud and Tariq don't try and push their religion and the laws of their former homeland on anyone, no one really cares. Yes, people don't look very deeply into a lot of the root causes of foreign disputes (hell or many domestic ones for that matter) but that is their perogative.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
Das backing an atheist that vehemently insults all christians and muslims.. This is new..
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Das backing an atheist that vehemently insults all christians and muslims.. This is new..

He insults those religious nuts that are 'in your face' and pontificate. In that respect I agree with him..
Religion is a personal thing to me and I try never to push my beliefs on anybody else....and oh yes even some atheists pontificate.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
He insults those religious nuts that are 'in your face' and pontificate. In that respect I agree with him..
Religion is a personal thing to me and I try never to push my beliefs on anybody else....and oh yes even some atheists pontificate.

I think nutjob's rants strike much closer to home than that.


You pay good lip service to being against all violence but your posts say different...you have a definite bias against Israel for some reason and it shows.....

And sometimes I suspect that some of your acolytes if not you.... would have no objections to becoming Dhimmis in their own country......

I recognize the word Dhimmis. Neo-cons use it all the time to justify their irrational hatred of Muslims and Arabs. Let me see if I can find any references to Dhimmi in Oslo nutjob's manifest. Yep, nutjob repeated the word Dhimmi hundreds of times in his rantings in more or less the same context as you. In fact many of nutjob's claims sound like you could have wrote them.

Quotes from the Oslo Nutjob's manifest.
http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf

(Do any of nutjob's claims sound familiar to you?)
The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation
and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that
increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the
law.

Islamisation or the creation of Islamic no-go zones is under development from the first
Muslim family moves into a neighbourhood. As soon as this very first family moves in, a
progressive dhimmitude begins for all non-Muslims as they, at first, out of politeness (or
due to PC) chose to show special considerations towards the Muslims (we wouldn’t want
them to feel offended in any way do we?). Considerations/politeness develops into
uncomfortable pressure to give the Muslims an increasing number of concessions. The
process of Islamisation starts with the demands for halal-food (1%) and ends in genocide
(at 50-80%), as several hundred historical examples have shown. You cannot reason
with Islam. Islam consumes everything eventually unless it is stopped in a decisive manner. The process of Islamisation from 1% to 100% follows a classical and well known
pre-defined pattern as specified in another section of this book. Had this “first family”
been deported/chased away/killed the process of Islamisation and the creation of future
Islamic no-go zones can/could be avoided. Islamic demands lead to dhimmitude for the
non-Muslims. Dhimmitude ALWAYS lead to a point where non-Muslims surrender and
move out of the area or are systematically killed like we see with the
Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist minorities in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Bangladesh,
Indonesia and in more than 30 other countries/territories. The moral of the story is; you
cannot reason with Islam, you can only isolate it.

The civilisation of dhimmitude does not
develop all at once. It is a long process that involves many elements and a specific
conditioning. It happens when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to
uphold these destructive myths, more then their own values because they are confused
by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only
guarantee of their survival, when, in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorised by
the evidence and teaching of history, those peoples preferred to destroy it rather than to
face it. They replace history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia.

The new European civilisation in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilisation of
dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Koranic word ''dhimmi.'' It refers to
the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating
subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death.

Time is of the essence. We have only a few decades to consolidate a sufficient level of
resistance before our major cities are completely demographically overwhelmed by
Muslims. Ensuring the successful distribution of this compendium to as many Europeans
as humanly possible will significantly contribute to our success. It may be the only way to
avoid our present and future dhimmitude (enslavement) under Islamic majority rule in
our own countries.


Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald shares his worries about MESA[18]:
“As an organisation, MESA has over the past two decades slowly but surely been taken
over by apologists for Islam.” “The apologetics consists in hardly ever discussing Jihad,
dhimmitude, or indeed even introducing the students to Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.”

Islam's persecution of non-Muslims is in no way limited to jihad, even though that is the
basic relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. After the jihad concludes in
a given area with the conquest of infidel territory, the dhimma, or treaty of protection,
may be granted to the conquered "People of the Book" -- historically, Jews, Christians,
and Zoroastrians. The dhimma provides that the life and property of the infidel are
exempted from jihad for as long as the Muslim rulers permit, which has generally meant
for as long as the subject non-Muslims -- the dhimmi -- prove economically useful to the
Islamic state.

The status of these dhimmi peoples is comparable in many ways to that of former slaves in
the post-bellum American South. Forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair
extant ones, economically crippled by the jizya, socially humiliated, legally discriminated
against, and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness and vulnerability by the
Muslim overlords, it should not be surprising that their numbers dwindled, in many places
to the point of extinction.

Should the dhimmi violate the conditions of the dhimma -- perhaps through practicing his
own religion indiscreetly or failing to show adequate deference to a Muslim -- then the
jihad resumes. At various times in Islamic history, dhimmi peoples rose above their
subjected status, and this was often the occasion for violent reprisals by Muslim
populations who believed them to have violated the terms of the dhimma.

while I was analyzing and writing about the processes of dhimmitude and the
civilisation of dhimmitude, while listening to the radio, watching television, reading the
newspapers, I had the uncomfortable feeling that the clock was being turned back.

So, is the past always prologue? Are we doomed to remain always prisoners of the same
errors? Certainly, if we do not know the past; and this past -- the long and agonising
process of Christian annihilation by the laws of Jihad and dhimmitude -- is a taboo
history, not only in Islamic lands, but above all in the West.

the Western population can in the future be transformed into half-slaves
(dhimmis) and their property (slowly) taken over by those in power – Muslims.

The European officer corps and the noncommissioned
officers have not yet been replaced. Non-Muslims will later according to
the rules of dhimmitude not be allowed to own weapons, or be part of the armed forces.


Supporting references from the Oslo nutjob's manifest: (Aren't these the same websites you also reference to back up your points?)

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5418
Little Green Footballs - CAIR Founder Convicted of Terrorism
Muslims Hold Sensitivity Training for FBI Agents, Health Care Professionals - Jihad Watch
UK student warned to stop protesting anti-Semitism - Jihad Watch
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22323&only
Saudi Prince Gives Millions to Harvard and Georgetown to spread Islam - Jihad Watch
Little Green Footballs - WAMY Runs Jihad Camps in Ontario
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008907.php
Poller: Referendum On A Constitution For A Patchwork Nation Without Borders - Jihad Watch
EU raises 2005 aid to Palestinians to ?280 million - Jihad Watch
G8 offers<em> $9 billion</em> to Palestinians - Jihad Watch
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4992

So after reading the same crap from the same websites and spouting the same irrational hatred against Muslims and Islam as nutjub, do you also feel the same need to act quickly and decisively against the cultural genocide threat posed by Muslim infiltration of our society?
 
Last edited:

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
You were in the right thread the first place you tool......moving goal posts and going all over the place isn't enough for you...now you're cross thread quoting...
You have so many anti Israel threads going that you've lost it...take a break.. this shyte is getting to you
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
This thread is about the nutjob in Oslo, his manifest and his ideology. Anything in his manifesto is on topic. I noticed nutjob's ideology is close if not identical to yours and many other Muslim haters on this forum. He shares your opinions, uses the same terminology and even references the same websites.

I may be doing you a huge favor by pointing out where your irrational hatred of Muslims and extreme neocon ideology could lead.

You are welcome.
 
Last edited: