Who Are the Real Culprits of the Oslo Massacre?

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Enoch Powell’s prophesy in his “Rivers of Blood” speech delivered in Birmingham in 1968, was to occur by the “cunning of history,”  if not by its ‘revenge’, forty-three years later in the peaceful and highly cultured country of Norway to the shock of all people who had not taken seriously the premonition of  that outstanding conservative British politician. Powell had early on seen that the ‘progressive’ immigration policies that were artificially breathed-in on the political landscape of the UK by a hybrid breed of Labor and Conservative governments, would not take long before they changed into dragons teeth that in turn would spawn homicidal ‘armed camps’ between indigenous and migrant populations of Britain. The first phase of Powell’s dire prediction had already happened when the children of immigrants transformed themselves into Islamic homegrown terrorists, and detonated bombs aboard London Underground trains on 7 July 2005, killing and wounding hundreds of people—and the currently burning of Britain by the offspring of migrants is directly correlated to the same inconceivably foolish and ill-advised immigration policies of the past–as well as one year earlier in the Madrid train bombings by Moroccan Islamic homegrown terrorists. And as we all witnessed, the second phase, the indigenous reaction to those fatal immigration policies, occurred in the cultured polished country of Henrik Ibsen by the murderous action of a ‘Viking Warrior’, Anders Behring Breivik, who took it in his hands, as his long Manifesto makes clear, to close the doors to Muslim immigration in Norway, and to prevent the future domination of Europe by Muslims. These actions were not the actions of a madman, but the actions fed and bred by a mad immigration policy that was implemented over a number of years by so called humanitarian and caring social democratic governments toward Third World countries in Scandinavia, Norway being the first victim of that policy that was to be put in the government made straitjacket.

For inevitably, that bizarrely naïve immigration policies adopted by a number of economically developed European countries, and ‘escorted’ by that beautiful debutante of multiculturalism, would divide the countries politically and severely between left and right, as it is being illustrated presently and pellucidly in many parts of  Europe. With such political and cultural polarization in Europe and within the context of the external and internal mortal threat that Islamic barbaric fanaticism poses to Western civilization, as well as the economic crisis of the Euro zone, not to expect that fringes of the extreme right would not be prone to commit atrocities, could only be assumed by those who like ostriches have their heads buried in the sand. The Breivik killings could only shock the historically ignorant and the incorrigibly naïve.  And, indeed, it may turn out to be a dress rehearsal for other European countries that are likewise divided on the issue of immigration and multiculturalism and the internal threat of Islamization. The former PM Tony Blair in an interview he gave in his last visit to Australia sees the Oslo atrocities as an extreme reaction to the “Islamization of Europe.” (M.E.) The liberal internationalists who dub those who believe that this threat is real as “Islamophobes,” are fugitives from reality and are totally incapable of composing a narrative of reason on the issue. Were those like Winston Churchill, after the Anschluss of Austria by the Nazis in 1938, who were convinced that the latter posed a real threat to Europe and to the peace of the world, ‘Naziphobes’?  And can one likewise disregard the profound cogitations of great thinkers, like the Islamist scholar Bernard Lewis, who forewarns that Europe by the end of the century by the dint of demographics, will be Islamized?

Here lies the cause of the Oslo massacre. And European governments who are becoming conscious and aware that these ill-conceived immigration policies of the past and present are rallying their own people to take direct action against these policies and against congenitally unassimilated Muslims who are lazily teeming the cities of Europe as a result of these doltish policies, must bring the latter to an end. Moreover, many Muslims willingly become ‘secularly’ unemployed-to use the term in its economic meaning-and of the underclass, since their preference is to be welfare dependent. And the safety net of welfare, especially the one that applies to families, is a honeyed incentive for Muslims to have big families, which is in accord with their religion, as the more children they have the bigger the payments of welfare. Hence, ‘working’ and sweating in the conjugal bed is a pleasurable source of ‘windfall’ income.

We see therefore, that the demographic change of Europe, of which a sizeable part of its population is Muslim, is fostered not only by religious factors, i.e., Muslim polygamy, but also by economic factors. i.e. the exploitation and milking of the welfare system by the true believers of Mohammed. This unholy wedlock of religion with economic sleaze provocatively raises the ire of the majority of the indigenous population who as tax payers are footing the bill, and who are terrified that future generations of Europeans would be living under Sharia laws. It’s these factors that agitate Europeans and induce them to support political parties that are committed to put a stop to Muslim immigration, to enact radical reforms to the welfare system that presently is a big tit that feeds Muslim procreation, and to engender the conditions for Muslim integration to European mores by ceasing to subsidize Muslim schools and Mosques. It’s only by hardening the political and social landscape of Europe for Muslims that governments can prevent their citizens from taking extreme measures to reverse the past deeply flawed immigration policies that are responsible for such extreme and atrocious actions as perpetrated in this case by Anders Behring Breivik.

I rest on my oars: your turn now…

Advertisements

Reply to American Diehard Pacifist who is against Intervention in Libya

I’m republishing this short piece that was written at the earliest stages of the “Intervention” by NATO and the U.S. in Libya, illustrating how wrong the Liberal-Pacifists were about the outcome of the intervention that led to the collapse of the Gaddafi dictatorship.

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Distortion and lack of imagination are not a good way to make your case. On your first point, where in the world has there been even a blip of demonstrable opposition to the Coalition’s intervention in Libya? On your second point, only one bereft of a modicum of imagination cannot see that despite the fact that the “goal of the coalition” is not the “defeat of the dictator,” nonetheless the implementation of the no-fly zone by the Coalition nolens volens enervates the loyalist forces and invigorates the Opposition forces with the great potential to overthrow the dictator. On your third, isn’t a fact that Gaddafi and his military personnel fled the compound which was a command and military control centre just before it was hit by a tomahawk missile? And on your fourth and last point that Obama breached the constitution and should therefore be impeached, is a fiction and should be rejected as such. You deliberately and misleadingly leave out the sentence of the War Powers Act, 1973, which is relevant to the current military engagement of the U.S. in Libya. “The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify (M.E.) Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days…without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.” Only at the passing of 60 days, and if he did not seek an authorized extension for the military deployment would Obama be in breach of the War Powers Act. It seems therefore to me that your ditty about Obama breaching the constitution and should be impeached, is out of tune with the reality of the situation.

You have said to me before that you are some sort of a musician playing the mandolin. It amuses me therefore to see why you switch your talent from ditties to war and strategy that are beyond the depth of a mandolin player.

Further, you will find out at your cost that the land of Australia is not only the land of the kangaroos but also the land of the boomerang that just struck you.