When Islamists commit atrocities, leftists never blame all Muslims, yet all those opposed to Third World immigration are blamed for the Anders Breivik massacre, Andrew Brons MEP has said.
In a statement issued on a debate held today in the European Parliament (to which only party leaders could speak), Mr Brons said that “when a Muslim commits a terrorist outrage, expressly in support of Islam, commentators from the establishment political parties and media are always at pains to stress that he was not really acting on behalf of Islam and that blame could certainly not be extended to other Muslims. It is self-evidently true that Muslims generally cannot be blamed for a terrorist act that they have never supported, in word or deed.
“When the IRA was committing terrorist outrages in support of a united Ireland, nobody suggested that the Social Democratic and Labour Party shared guilt for the outrage, simply because they also supported the objective of a united Ireland.
“However, during the debate, preceding the one minute’s silence in respect for the victims of the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, several party leaders tried to make political capital from the killings. In so doing, they demonstrated, not respect, but complete disrespect, for the victims of the outrage.
“The leaders of the Social Democrats (Martin Schultz), Liberals (Guy Verhofstadt) and the Greens (Daniel Cohn-Bendit) were particularly defamatory of all opponents of immigration and/or multi-racialism and all critics of Islam.
“Indeed, Cohn-Bendit tried to allege that Jean-Marie le Pen had made a speech that was sympathetic towards Breivik. Of course, Mr Le Pen had done no such thing; he had simply criticised the Norwegian police for failing to take security measures to protect Norwegian citizens.
“Even the MEP representing the party founded by anti-Catholic bigots, the Democratic Unionist Party, mentioned her distaste for the so-called ‘Far Right’.
“Saying that all opponents of immigration, multi-racialism and Islam, in some way, share culpability for the crimes of Breivik is the exact equivalent of blaming all Muslims for a terrorist outrage committed by a deranged group of Muslims.
“Multi-racialist bigots in the European Parliament have never attacked Sinn Fein MEP, Bairbre le Brun for her party’s erstwhile support for its terrorist wing, the IRA. However, they feel that they can attack Nationalists who have always attacked acts of terrorism, regardless of the claimed cause or objective of the terrorist.
“People committing terrorist acts such as those of Breivik must, of course, be condemned whatever their cause might be. However, it is worth noting that Beivik is not the racially-motivated, ‘Far Right’ Nationalist that he is depicted to be. He is opposed to Muslim immigration but not (it would seem) other immigration.
“Furthermore, he is a vociferous supporter of Israel and Zionism. In contrast, the Norwegian Social Democratic Party has expressed support for the Palestinian cause. It has been suggested that his attacks on the office of the (Social Democratic) Prime Minister and on youthful members of that party might have motivated by his love for Israel and his dislike of Palestinians,” Mr Brons said.
3
At a Women Christian Confernce in Derbyshire on Saturday last, it was said that Britains fortunes are closely linked with those of Israil and that when we fail to defend her, we suffer too.
If we look at our recent history and the recent history of Israil there does seem a correlation.
I do not share your views Caractacus regarding Israel or Jews in general. It would be interesting to see the evidence of the correlation you mention. Perhaps cause and effect would be a more accurate term to use if you are referring to many of our current problems with Islam and our support for Israel. It may be true that even without the Israeli connection there would still be problems with Islam, but this gives it an added dimension.
A K Chesterton warned us many years ago about becoming embroiled in the Levant on Israel’s behalf which is implicit in your post.
Also Jews have always been very active in promoting Third World immigration into Britain (including Moslem immigration) and have consistently opposed British Nationalism. I do not criticise all Jews here but certainly many of the the more influential ones are guilty in this regard. Perhaps this dichotomy is due to what Churchill referred to as “National” and “International” Jews.
British Nationalism has always had a wise policy of non-involvement in overseas conflicts that are not directly in Britain’s interest so we should heed Chesterton’s wise words and not get suckered into a Middle East conflict on Israel’s behalf.
Third world disease, TB, HIV/AIDS DIPTHERIA, MEASLES you name it rampant in the UK’s most densly colonised areas.
What are the hand wringing tree huggers doing about it? Inviting more inbred thirdworlders into this OUR country. Well here me and here me well, not on my mandate. As a British born citizen I call you traitors and with luck will hold you to account at some time.
Your time is approaching, beter get your bolt holes sorted. You will need them.
An excellent point made by Andrew Brons MEP. The duplicity of these left/liberals when talking about Nationalists is just sickening. Perhaps these people would actually prefer it if Nationalists did espouse violence, but we don’t. Why should holding a certain viewpoint be considered wrong because one man who holds similar views decides to behave in an insane manner? Fred West was apparently a member of the Labour Party. Denis Nielson was apparently a member of the Socialist Workers party. Does that mean that all socialists are potential serial killers? Of course not, and no Nationalist would condemn all socialists for the actions of these men. Although Breivik claimed to be killing in the name of his beliefs, his actions were really those of a psychopath with his own unique agenda and therefore condemned by all sane and civilised people. To use the actions of this obvious psychopath as a hammer to bash civilised, honest, patriotic Nationalists is nothing short of an outrage.