|…”His blood be on us and on our children”…|
Zmedia watches Israel’s peaceful housing protest.Zmedia thinks it’s z sign they were waiting4.Meanwhile #LondonRiotsAugust 19, 2011
Anders Behring Breivik is an updated Hitler hybrid. The goals are shared, but the methodology is changed. He isn’t interested in outside his Cultural Christian (but tolerant to atheism) borders. Anders’ attack was against Socialists. Socialists that were hostile to the West, but he didn’t see them as inherently hostile. Muslims were merely a side theatre. And yet he didn’t seem to have any real beef with Socialism. For Anders it was all about the dangers of “Internationalism”, but he seemed content with large government if he could control it. He had no problems with attacks against Muslims, as a way of encouraging Jihadi attacks, but even in this case, Muslims are just tools in his fight against the European traitors. His quotes are in RED…
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: No, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy
If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic (expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe.
|this image is taken before the carnage|
Breivik does mention that large numbers of Jews would have to be executed as Class A or Class B traitors, but urges targeting by political belief, rather than by race.
While most have swallowed the idea that Breivik was a counterjihadist, his actual plan was to exploit tensions over Muslim terrorism, in order to conduct a campaign of terrorism against European targets and seize power with a more stable version of National Socialism.
Breivik was not a Nazi himself, for tactical reasons, because he disagreed with Nazi expansionism. But his own plan called for the use of WMD’s in Europe and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of traitors. The echoes of the Turner Diaries are very obviously present in his manifesto.
Breivik viewed Muslims as the enemy, but only domestically. He emphasized that;
“Knights Templar do not intend to persecute devout Muslims”
And he contemplated collaborating with them on terrorist attacks against Europe.
“An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties… We both share one common goal.”
“They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass “screenings” in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc.”
Ask yourself if these are the words of a anti-Jihadist who was fighting against Islam. Or a delusional European terrorist who was willing to ally with Jihadist against his fellow Europeans.
Breivik spells out that he is willing to kill Europeans on behalf of just about anyone…
There might come a time when we, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will consider to use or even to work as a proxy for the enemies of our enemies.
Under these circumstances, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will for the future consider working with the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout fractions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations.Justiciar Knights and other European Christian martyrs can avoid the scrutiny normally reserved for individuals of Arab descent and we can ensure successful deployment and detonation in the location of our choice.
This should put to rest any idea that Breivik was on a crusade against Islam. He was a deluded man who imagined himself leading a takeover of Europe, even if he had to serve as a Muslim proxy to do it. This post has quotes from Sultan Knish
over the week my family was in Cape Cod. I was left to tend the house in Poughkeepsie with my mother’s pal… a radical feminist. I try to understand her. In a conversation at the farm here at Vassar she clarified that she was against penetration of any form. That penetration according to her was the cause of all oppression against women. I asked her how she would apply this finding. She said she would only work with consent. The wording was left is such a way as to assume harmony. She doctored her fascism in such a way that was suitable for her to spread her ideas in a popular forum. Her real intent remains hidden… of course we all know that mob tyranny always works with consent…. ok… so why does this apply to Anders? Because I am making speculation that Anders might of not really spoken his real beliefs. That Anders was trying to make a philosophy that others could swallow… often when people create fabrications they start believing it themselves. Somewhere in Ander’s subconscious was a fear of others… to get rid of others he was willing to work with the others. None of it makes sense to you and me… but Anders convinced himself of his own fabrication. He had no problem with greater control and socialism… as long as it was his own control and socialism. He had no problem with Christians… because he created his own “Christian”. and he had no problem working with Muslims because he created an Islam he thought he could control. Islam is very simple. It says to kill or tax those who are not Muslim. Anders made his enemy and his own identity more complex then they actually are. Christianity and Islam can not be altered like Judaism can be.
This Post could also be described as Israel Vs. New World Order
Internationalism is a huge threat.
I realize that the concept of the NWO has been framed by many people who hate Jews…. but the reality is that Israel is the biggest threat to a world government
National Review Online
As someone who deeply appreciates what Western civilization, for all its faults, has achieved, I puzzle over the hostility many Westerners harbor toward their way of life. If democracy, free markets, and the rule of law have created an unprecedented stability, affluence, and decency; how come so many beneficiaries, fail to see this?
Why, for example, does the United States, which has so much for human welfare, inspire such hostility? And tiny Israel, the symbol of rejuvenation for a perpetually oppressed people – why does it engender such passionate hatred that otherwise decent people desire to eliminate this state?Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem offers an explanation for this antagonism in a profound and implication-rich essay, “Israel Through European Eyes.”
He begins with the notion of “paradigm shift” developed by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 study, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This influential concept holds that scientists see their subject from within a specific framework, a “paradigm.” Paradigms are frameworks that underpin an understanding of reality. Facts that do not fit the paradigm are overlooked or dismissed. Kuhn reviews the history of science and shows how, in a series of scientific revolutions, paradigms shifted, as from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian physics.
Paradigms also frame politics and Hazony applies this theory to Israel’s delegitimization in the West. Israel’s standing has deteriorated for decades, he argues, “not because of this or that set of facts, but because the paradigm through which educated Westerners are looking at Israel has shifted.” Responding to the vilification of Israel by offering corrective facts – about Israel’s military morality or its medical breakthroughs – “won’t have any real impact on the overall trajectory of Israel’s standing among educated people in the West.” Instead, the latest paradigm must be recognized and fought.
The fading paradigm sees nation-states as legitimate and positive, a means of protecting peoples and allowing them to flourish. The treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the key moment in which the sovereignty of nations was recognized. John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson endowed the nation-state ideal with global reach.
That paradigm, however, “has pretty much collapsed,” Hazony asserts. The nation-state no longer appeals; many intellectuals and political figures in Europe see it “as a source of incalculable evil,” a view that is fast spreading.
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, lived 1724-1804.
The new paradigm, based ultimately on Immanuel Kant’s 1795 treatise Perpetual Peace, advocates the abolition of nation-states and the establishment of international government. Supra-national institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union represent its ideals and models.
Jews and the Holocaust play a strangely central role in the paradigm shift from nation-state to multinational state. The millennial persecution of Jews, culminating in the Nazi genocide, endowed Israel with special purpose and legitimacy according to the old paradigm. From the perspective of the new paradigm, however, the Holocaust represents the excesses of a nation-state, the German one, gone mad.
Under the old nation-state paradigm, the lesson of Auschwitz was “Never again,” meaning that a strong Israel was needed to protect Jews. The new paradigm leads to a very different “Never again,” one which insists that no government should have the means potentially to replicate the Nazi outrages. According to it, Israel isn’t the answer to Auschwitz. The European Union is. That the old-style “Never again” inspires Israelis to pursue the Western world’s most unabashed policy of self-defense makes their actions particularly appalling to New Paradigmers.
Need one point out the error of ascribing Nazi outrages to the nation-state? The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states. No less than Kant, they dreamed of a universal state,. New Paradigmers mangle history.
Israelis themselves are not immune to the new paradigm, as the case of Avraham Burg suggests. A former speaker of Israel’s parliament and candidate for prime minister, he switched paradigms and wrote a book on the legacy of the Holocaust that compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He now wants Israelis to give up on Israel as defender of the Jewish people. No one, Burg’s sad example suggests, is immune from the new paradigm disease.
Hazony’s essay does not offer policy responses but in a letter to me he sketched three areas to address: building awareness of the new paradigm’s existence, finding anomalies to invalidate it, and revitalizing the old paradigm by bringing it up to date.
His insights are profound and his counsel timely.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. ©2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Aug. 17, 2010 update: (1) I have gnawed away at the mystery of the Left over the past decade, writing on such varied topics as structural differences between the United States and Europe, poor Atlantic relations, opposed European and American “super-systems,” the intensity of European guilt, the fear of a mythological “Empire,” the mind-bending phenomenon of liberal fascism, the infatuation with international institutions, the legacy of World War I, the impact of President Kennedy’s assassination, and the bias of university press publications. I have also published a small avalanche of analyses about the Left’s soft spot for Islamism.
(2) Note that the new paradigm applies exclusively to Western states. Syria and Iran, to take prominent examples, get a free pass; it’s quite fine for them to pursue national interests in as bellicose a fashion as possible, without invoking the Left’s wrath.
Hitler wanted to end the nation state.
Mohammad wanted to end the nation state.
…the end of division can not be achieved by men.
Our borders are what protect us from tyranny.