Norwegians now saying Oslo attack by “extreme right,” not jihadists

Because the shooter at the Utoya youth camp was Norwegian. No one seems to be wondering whether or not he is a convert.

“Experts point to the extreme-right,” a translation of an article from Nyheder, July 22:

The man in police uniform who shot wildly around on Utøya is Norwegian. – It is highly possible that this may be linked to the extreme-right, says Professor Tore Bjørgo at the Police Academy.

Most experts have earlier today speculated that radical Islamist groups or terrorist organizations are behind the bomb in the city center and the shooting at Utøya, where a number of people confirmed killed.

But all indications are that this is not international terrorism.

Police earlier this evening arrested a man who is tall, blond and spoke eastern dialect. Based on the observations that the police believe the man has been arrested after the shooting at Utøya, can also be linked to the attack on government building.

At a press conference late Friday night confirming Justice Minister Knut Storberget that the arrested perpetrator is Norwegian….

Police earlier in the evening received tips about sightings of a Nordic-looking man in police uniform in a brown van outside the government building. Later a man dressed as a policeman opened fire at Utøya an hour later, killing ten people.

Professor Tore Bjørgo at the Police College said earlier tonight that these bloody attacks can come from other communities than Islamist – not least because witnesses Utøya says that the man who shot at people wearing police clothes, had a Nordic look. In addition, the attack directed against a political youth organization….

The renowned Swedish terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said earlier today that this appeared to be Al Qaeda’s work. Later he changed his mind.

– Had it only been a bombing, it would be natural to connect it to Islamic extremism. Now we have shootings at the Labour Party’s youth as well, and it changes the whole picture, says Searches Torp to the Swedish news agency TT.

He believes that this simply may be a single crazy person’s work, he says.

– It’s a very strange device if you are inspired by al-Qaeda and attack on a youth camp in this way, he says.

Bjørgo at the police college says that the action is reminiscent of a bomb attack in Oklahoma City in 1995, where the right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people by a powerful car bomb.

Bjørgo said that terrorist attacks may be linked to two to three main suspects environments – and that the extreme right is one of those.

– It reminds me of Oklahoma City bombing. The scenarios we have seen today, is described in the main, right-wing literature, says Bjørgo.

He refers to books like “The Turner Diaries” and “Hunter.” The first book deals with a bloody race war, which among other things, the FBI’s headquarters are bombed. McVeigh was wearing a copy of “The Turner Diaries” when he was arrested.

– If it is true that the perpetrator had a Nordic look, this increases the credibility of the extreme right can be left behind, says Bjørgo.

He would not speculate on how likely this is.

– This will most likely clarify rather soon, says Bjørgo….

Some terrorism experts believe Al-Qaeda behind Norway attacks
Islamic Internet forums cheer Norway murders
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    There is no way this is some kind of a “right-wing attack”. The left-right divide is not so drastic in Norway and the political climate is not aggressive enough to warrant anything even close to this.

    He is either a convert or a white Muslim, perhaps one of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims who immigrated there in the nineties.

  2. says

    Even if it this monster is shown to be a far-right non-Muslim lone operator, just watch the Muslims get maximum mileage out of this – they will play the victim and milk it – they will claim that this was a typical example of the “West” jumping to conclusions, of being biased, etc. Well, the assumptions (that lead to the normally obvious conclusions) are fairy logical – most of these types of terrorist acts have been carried out by Muslims.

    The Beslan Jihadis targeted a school full of children, so there is a precedent.

  3. says

    From “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer – page 86:

    “The traitor is usually a fanatic (radical or reactionary) who goes over to the enemy in order to hasten the downfall of a world he loathes. Most of the traitors in the 2nd World War came from the extreme right. ‘There seems to be a thin line between violent, extreme nationalism and treason’ (Harold Ettlinger).”

    ###

    Can we assume this Norwegian is a right-wing Muslim convert?

  4. says

    If true, be prepared for mega-doses of moral equivalency statements by the MSM and other Western elites. Let’s see. Since 9/11 there have been over 17,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide. There have also been untold thousands of intended Islamic terrorism atttacks which have been foiled by police and security authorities around the world. By contrast, how many non-Muslim, right-wing terrorist attacks have occurred worldwide over the past decade? It seems it’s not sufficient that something like 98% or 99% of terrorism throughout the world is committed by Muslims in the name of their religion. Apparently it would have to be 100% before the MSM and their ilk would even begin to budge on their conviction (and a very narrow-minded one it is at that) that criticizing Islam in toto is evidence of rank prejudice. And even then the doofuses would probably stick to their Plan A which requires never, ever indicting the Islamic faith across the board. Our stupid times continue.

  5. says

    Actually the option of a convert to Islam has been debated in Norwegian and Danish media, mentioned as a likely scenaria. But the lack of any references to Allah is puzzling, as is the target: Naïve, Palestine-friendly young socialists very concerned with the rise of ‘Islamophobia’. Here is their own page (in Norwegian) about their combatting ‘Xenophobia’ and ‘Islamophobia’ at the Utøya summer camp.

    I’ve watched the coverage for 6 hours straight, heard many an expert say “This looks like Al-Qaeda”, but at the moment there is no major indication of Islamic motivation.

  6. says

    The coward traitors mainstream media

    http://newstime.co.nz/video-oslo-jihad-terror-attack-eye-witness-account.html

    Norway: Youth Camp Shooting Leaves 20 – 25 Dead

    “I have been made victorious with terror”
    Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, #220

    8:12 “…I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers (and beheading with a knife/sword/axe)”

    8:60 “…to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah (i.e. “Unbelievers” 8:59)”

    The coward sadist Allah about the “wishy-washy” (or so-called “moderate”) Muslims in his Qur’an 33:23, 24 “…and punish the Hypocrites”

    Qur’an 33:57 – 61 “(unbelievers) shall be seized and slain”

  7. says

    It reminds me of Oklahoma City bombing. The scenarios we have seen today, is described in the main, right-wing literature, says Bjørgo.

    Yeah, it reminds me of the Murrah Mass Murder, too.

    Except, in the days leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing there were several things present:

    1) The Moslem junior college professor/slumlord who was seen repeatedly with Tim McVeigh, including the night before the mass murder, when several witness swore they saw the two at a table in a strip club, talking quietly.

    2) Several vets of the Iraqi Republican Guard the slumlord brought into the country to fix up paint up, again sworn to in affadavits by several Judeo-Christian Okies.

    3) The reeking stench of what smelled like a mixutre of diesel fuel and fertilizer emanating from a truck parked overnight in front of the Moslem slumlord’s office.

    4) The other guy, the Moslem from Lebanon who appeared just before the attack and fled just after, who was then stopped by MI-5 in Gatwick who found wires and and low tech circuit breakers in his luggage before they released him on Janet Reno’s orders.

    Yes, Bjørgo, there is so much in Norway today remindful of the Moslem Mass Murder in Oklahoma that fateful day. That was a right wing terror operation with absolutely no link to Moslems, the Holy Prophet Mohammed or Allah.

  8. says

    We’ll just have to wait for more information. It’s also likely they get the most Nordic looking guy they can to pull off the job, just as we’ve been warned, and why

    GRABBING NORMAL-LOOKING AND ACTING AMERICANS at the airport isn’t good screening.

    The problem with spinless governments is that you still end up with a growing Muslim problem and a pile of country-loving patriots who can’t believe their government won’t act to protec them.

    You lose both ways, so why not do the right and brave thing and get these Muslims out of your countries?

  9. says

    Seems puzzling that a Jihadist group would claim credit, only to retract it later.

    Perhaps for the intended effect of deflecting attention from Islamic terror to rumors of a “right wing” plot?

  10. says

    Even if these horrible attacks do turn out to have been carried out by a person or persons claiming to have been motivated by a crazy ideology other than Islam, from that it still wouldn’t logically follow that that we are therefore obligated to lie about what Islam teaches and base all of our policies on lies, which is what we’re doing now. Western leaders need to tell the truth about Islam now!

  11. says

    All of this fanfare is quite reminiscent of the turn of events after the failed Times Square Bombing – where everyone speculated that it was a “white man” and Mayor Bloomberg asserted the perpetrator was “someone who doesn’t like the Healthcare bill”

    TO be honest, I am quite confident the perpetrator in this instance will be tied somehow to Jihadist groups despite all of the efforts to pin this on a “right wing” nut job.

    It just doesn’t add up that a person with a grievance against the government would begin to massacre children at a camp — typical Islamic behavior.

  12. says

    Can anyone explain to me why terrorism, according to the MSM, is assumed to be by the “far-right?”

    Maybe this guy’s ideology is far-left?

    Maybe he is emulating Pol Pot or Stalin, for all we know.
    Apart from the obvious Jihadist possibility.

  13. says

    Family Values, I don’t care about your poor textbooks – would scrap them.

    National Socialists were (are) strongly anti-Capitalist (their basis for being anti-Jewish – look it up) and mightily confused people. They are, by their own admission, direct descendents of the Jacobineans of the French Revolition. Radical lefties. The perpetrator, if it’s the same man apprehended in 2001, is a radical leftie.

    The media may be confused about Right or Left. Knowing history sets that right.

  14. says

    News item from November 2001 about a then 23 year old Neo-Nazi from the area near Utøya – he was arrested for possesions of explosives and two police uniforms. In 1998 convicted of selling arms (AK 47, Uzis, shot guns) to Neo-Nazis.

    http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article231455.ece

    The man arrested today is a 32 year old ethnic Norwegian.

    Rumours reported on TV rigth now that he belongs to rigth wing “environment” in eastern Norway.

    Police is searching his house:

    http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/politiaksjon-hos-paagrepet-mann-32-i-oslo-3544610.html

  15. says

    I smell I-S L-A-M …!!

    Putting a “Right Wing Extremist” MSM spin on it doesn’t wash. Look at the parts:

    * Friday mass murder

    * Arab superstition numerology (9/11 is also 7/22 = 11)

    * Al-Qaeda styled multiple attacks

    I’d put my money on a White blond Muslim jihadist who hates Norway and the West, for reasons of grievances, Afghanistan, NATO … blah blah blah. He’s a cold eyed killer. Hope they catch his handlers too.

  16. says

    Family Values, Hitler was member of the “Majority Socialists” before 1920 and campaigned with heavy red posters already back then. If you read the link I provided to a propaganda pamplet, you’ll find it to be hardcore socialist stuff.

    Hitler was a Socialist, and like all socialist regimes it ended in a disaster.

  17. says

    Many countries have terorists who are not motivated by Islam: the IRA in Britain, ETA in Spain, McVeigh in US, the Red Brigades in Germany etc. Nevertheless, on a global scale, nine out of ten terrorists prefer Islam.

  18. says

    Hitler was not a socialist, he did not redistribute wealth or power or the means of production. The mature Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist and advocate of state capitalism. Look it up.

    If you believe that one you probably believe that affirmative action is racist, too…. the two American rightist canards seem to flock together.

  19. says

    not to glee at someone’s misfortune, but norway’s blatant kissing musloids’ glutei, and perverse anti-israel policies (‘perhaps nato should attack israel for commiting genocide and starving the poah hepwess wittle gazans…)
    how shall i put it…
    celestial justice?

  20. says

    Hitler himself siad that his movement was not socialist, and bemoaned that his party was saddled with that name: socialism was “an unfortunate word altogether”.

    Only right-wing ideologues insist that Nazism was a movement of the left.

  21. says

    Battle of Tours I agree with you completely – this all reeks of the religion of pieces….. although I could be wrong, I highly doubt it…..

  22. says

    Robert: With all due respect, the Oklahoma City bombing was NOT the act of McVeigh alone….the operation was planned and carried out by a palestinian doctor and an iraqi republican guards soldier, among many other middle easterners, who was let into the U.S. on a mercy visa. Hussien al Hussieni, who was seen running away from the blast, was never charged and is in fact still in the U.S. He may have been involved in 9/11.

    The FBI, for whatever reason, covered this all up. I get so tired of hearing this same crap repeated that Timothy McVeigh did it. He couldn’t and didn’t do it alone. The more you and your readers deny the truth of OKC the more unlikely it is the we will be able to prevent such things in the future. Please read Jayna Davis’, The Third Terrorist.

  23. says

    We only have to look at how political capital was spent when the opposition party (Socialist) blaming the Madrid bombing on the Basques.

  24. says

    Liberal leftist elitists ONLY have empty rhetoric. The next step for them is to simply say something (e.g., it was not jihad) and declare it to be true.

  25. says

    “But the lack of any references to Allah is puzzling, as is the target: Naïve, Palestine-friendly…”

    Ah. I see where you are going with that. Not sure I like it. Perhaps he is a Jew from the land of the midnight sun?

  26. says

    Hmmm. I’ll bet a number of survivors of that attack are now at least covertly “Islamophobic”. I strongly suspect that things like 9/11/01, the London “Chyube” bombings (forgive me British readers, I couldn’t help myself–you’re now allowed to mock me by spelling the word “Toob”), Beslan, Malmo, and now this are making a growing number of “Islamophobes”. I’ve also discovered that in my own hopelessly Left-wing, PeeCee/EmCee extended clan that there are people who are even more “Islamophobic” than I.

    I also note that a few years back, Mullah Krekar basically wanted to blackmail Norway with threats of violence when he was facing deportation. Here’s a link:

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110722/oslo-explosino-norway-blast-110722/

  27. says

    “Helpers of Global Jihad” rectracted their early claim of responsibility.

    Yeah, sure Henrik. Except you choose to conveniently forget that the official position of the gubmint of the Kingdom of Norway is there is no Global Jihad.

    *** 18:2 ***

    Allah makes it Straight and Clear in order that He may warn the Inifdels of a terrible Punishment from Him, and that He may give Glad Tidings to the Moslems who work righteous deeds that they shall have a goodly Reward.

    That’s the official position of every government in every other Judeo-Chrisian nation state, too.

    And there’s a reward out on that.

  28. says

    Henrik, that’s a recent and very shoddy American right-wing meme that most of the world doesn’t buy. Nazis are pro-capitalist, non-egalitarian statists and they belong to the right according to any political science textbook you care to look at.

  29. says

    Nazis are socialists, you jerk. “Nazi” is the short form of National Socialist, or are you completely ignorant of any history not written by Howard Zinn?

  30. says

    If we think of a political line that runs left to right. The left side favors entities rather than the individual that makes them up, the right favors the indivduals. At the extreme left side we would have some kind of hive-mind, and at the extreme right we would have total anarchy. However, within that spectrum we find those institutions that make up the real world, communism at the far left, then socialism etc. On the right, we would still occasionally find a belief in entities but only those that protect the rights of the individuals that make it up.

    National Socialism may be on the right of communism, but it is still on the left. The myth of right-wing nazis grew up after the second world war, when socialism in Britain and parts of Europe came to power. However, no one wanted to be in the same camp as the nazis and as a consequence the propaganda (something they had become extremely good at in those war years) of the time called the nazis right-wing. That bizarre thinking has stuck. However, Communism, with it’s talk of the motherland, and Nazism with it’s talk of the fatherland, weren’t all that dissimilar; both saw the entity, rather than the individuals that made it up, as being more important and consequently both stand on the left. So it is also with Islam; where the individual means next to nothing. Once this is understood, then there can be no confusion as to why Islam can find itself in alliance with both the liberals and the nazis. Both are left-wing groups. They can ally with any left-wing groups, the further left, the easier the alliance.

    Thanks to the myth of the nazi’s being right wing the words ‘right wing’themselves have become dirty words, to be shunned or used in smears. However, it is the right-wing that favors individual rights and those institutions that protect them. The right-wing has nothing to do with nazism and everything to do with freedom of speech and equality of rights for individuals etc.

    If this guy is extreme ‘right wing’ then that would probably make him an anarchist, however, it’s probably either just lazy media speak or the media towing the left’s political agenda.

  31. says

    Hitler’s gang took over a socialist movement, the ‘national socialist workers’ party,’ and transformed it into a fascist party. There was nothing socialist about Nazi Germany. The left was ruthlessly persecuted, whereas the corporate elites made vast fortunes.

  32. says

    Hitler was a socialist, but, admittedly, not as good as Lenin, Stalin or Mao. He could only boast slaughter of 25 million people while these good socialists produced more than 100 million dead. He learned a lot fom the proto-Nazi Lenin, but not enough to be a perfect socialist. But he certainly tried.

    Seriously now, if you are not aware of the importance of anti-capitalist ideas in Nazism then you know very little about Nazism. What else explains the fact that in the early years of Nazi party so many of its members were ex-communists?

    And BTW, mussolini’s fascist ideology was purest form of socialism

  33. says

    Sorry, Henrik, but respectfully I submit that Hitler was not a socialist. Hitler was for Hitler and that’s the bottom line. National Socialism (itself a contradictory term) was so convoluted that it incorporated both right-wing and left-wing elements. There’s really no point in trying to make sense out of Nazism. It was an ideology that was flexible to an absurd degree—as long as it was in control of Germany that’s all that really mattered.

    Besides, ultimately it was a cult—the cult of Adolf. Moreover, any left-wing elements in Nazism (such as Ernst Rohm and his boys {double entendre here to be sure}), were essentially extirpated from the Nazi Party during the Night of the Long Knives (June 30, 1934). Hitler needed the major (and minor) German capitalists on his side to build his war machine and advance many of his other designs. And so he proceded as he did. Calling Hitler a socialist makes no more sense that calling Hitler a Catholic because he was baptised into the Catholic faith as an infant.

  34. says

    The anti-capitalist elements, Juliet Grann, in Nazism, as indicated by its 25-point program published in February of 1920, are certainly there, but these elements always remained high theory and were almost without exception disregarded by Hitler once he achieved power in 1933 (and even to some extent before 1933 when on many occasions he sought to reassure German businessmen that Nazism would in no way interfere with their right to accumulate profits).

    The idea that Nazism was essentially leftist (especially after the Night of the Long Knives) is simply wrong, unless one extends to high theory an importance far beyond than what it deserves. I would close here by noting that looney right extremism (which I would vigorously argue characterizes Nazism far better than any description of it which puts it on the left side of the political spectrum) is exactly like looney left extremism in that both shut down freedom and desire to function in complete control-freak mode. In short, both are execrable, rather like Islam, which is also a control-freak ideology, only spiritual in nature rather than secular (and which also contains contradictory left and right ideas on such matters as the economy).

  35. says

    Well, I will agree with you that one should be more careful with applying labels like socialist, capitalist right and left. They are very “elastic” and rarely there is a consensus what constitutes their pure form. Still, I would like to say that your pointing out the fact that “Hitler sought to reassure German businessmen that Nazism would in no way interfere with their right to accumulate profits” doesn’t at all prove Nazism not being anti-capitalism.
    It is because socialism doesn’t at all define its goals as removing individual’s rights to “accumulate profits”. This would be Communism. Socialism is not so much about taking away the rights to accumulate profits, but distribution of wealth and building a state controlled apparatus to assure that distribution. If you look at not only Scandinavian countries, but many European countries you can see the powerful apparatus of wealth distribution, but also a solid group of capitalists enterprisers who create that wealth.
    You seem to having accepted the absoluteness of the left-right spectrum and of course once having accepted it you need to place the phenomenon of Nazism on that spectrum. I tend to take more seriously the liberty-tyranny spectrum and I see both “extreme right” and “extreme left” on the same side of it. Both are competitors in creating “better world” through social engineering, or socialism. Once again, Mussolini’s fascism was an improved (more effective) form of socialism. Hitler’s vision/program was of course much more comprehensive than Mussolini’s, but he has incorporated Mussolini’s social models in his vision.

    I do enjoy reading your comments.
    Kind regards

  36. says

    I detect, Juliet Grann, that we’re not very far apart here. Socialism, unlike Communism, does indeed not disallow profits (or private property) but its redistributionist “enthusiasms” are very much inclined to inordinately direct where such profits go (through excessive taxation and heaps of government rules and regulations). This, of course, requires much state control and social engineering, which in turn always limit liberty (though not as much as does Marxism, which wipes it out completely, rather like Islam does whenever Islam is given free reign).

    For the record, I am a Jeffersonian liberal. I believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that where there is no private property there is no freedom. Also like Jefferson I am convinced that government is best which ordinarily governs least. For the life of me I can’t understand why so many in the West (like Obama) want more government to solve problems. Government by nature creates mediocrity, status quoism, no incentive for excellence and permanence in the worst way (as Ronald Reagan observed, the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program). Above all, I prize freedom over equality (except in the law where equality is a must for any decent society—again contra Islam). All this, I think, makes me something of an anachronism.

    Back to Nazism, I think it best not to pay its philosophy much mind. Such philosophy as Nazism possessed was muddled in the extreme and was all about control by some Ubermensch and his superior race for a goal which was objectionable many times over and which was guaranteed to produce much misery for mankind should a great nation be taken over by it. And that’s exactly what happened. And its nationalistic elements always superseded its economic positions (which again were all over the map), which is the principal reason why I place Nazism on the right and not the left.

    I would close by noting that there is a major difference between nationalism and patriotism. The former is invariably ugly. The latter is eminently defensible even though it has unfortunately lost much luster in our contemporary world. Just look at Britian for an example of this. The poor Brits have been told they can’t take a pride in their past—it’s one of the great lies of our time and a major reason why Britain is now adrift and why the worst elements in Britain, so many of them Muslim but also so many of them the modern foolish elite, are so full of passionate intensity.

    Thank you for your reply. Much appreciated.

  37. says

    With respect, Irony Man, I would vigorously argue that the Nazis were definitely right wing far, far more than they were left wing—extreme right wing to be specific (especially after the leftist economic element in the Nazi Party was destroyed in mid-1934). Unfortunately, too many on the left today can’t distinguish between mainstream right and far right. Hence the opprobrium heaped on the right in general. Conveniently to this day, however, the left will not look at the extreme left, as evidenced by Marxism and other far leftist elements, as something just as heinous as the extreme right (e.g., the Somozas are routinely excoriated but Castro is not). It’s all part of the double standard employed by the left again and again.

    Of this, be of no doubt, and that is that extremists on the left and extremists on the right want to shut down freedom. Both are also totalitarian across the board. It’s their way or no way. I will say this much, though grudgingly, for the extreme right and that is that at least it ordinarily doesn’t also ruin an economy as the far left invariably does. In this one respect it’s preferable. But I damn here with faint praise.

  38. says

    Well, beauty as they say, is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case its all about which first order principles you subscribe to. It would certainly be interesting to know what exactly defines your political/economic left right spectrum? (So that we know we’re not having two different conversations…I guess we need to square our relative understanding of left and right!).

    The left is all about the entity (though in ever increasing degrees up the scale), not the individuals that make it up. As no society is made up entirely of hermits and anarchists nor of states sans people – man is a social animal after all as the philosopher said – fundamentally we are left with the struggle between external control (conforming to some nebulous entity that somehow demands it of you – “You owe it to the state!”) and self determination. This simply leaves us with a spectrum of society (social entity vs the individual) which puts any social ideology in its basest terms somewhere on that line. So was Nazism concerned primarily with the protection and rights of individuals or was it just an ad hoc hodge podge of ever increasing social controls? For me it’s the latter, and that puts Nazism firmly on the left.

  39. says

    The far right is about the entity too—the state. Extreme nationalism is properly identified with the reactionaries on the right and not the radicals on the left who eschew nationalism, indeed hate the nation state, in the interest of some kind of collective world phenomemon, or no phenomenon at all (Stalin only appealed to Russian nationalism once the Soviet Union was invaded in 1941; before this he, Trotsky, Lenin and other Marxist ideologues tried to kill the Russian national spirit).

    In all my years of teaching history, I have never come across a major historian who assessed Nazism as primarily a left-wing ideology. Yes, Nazism, being the hodgepodge, loud-sounding nothing that it was, did have certain left-wing principles in its initial program outlined as far back as 1920, and there were some Nazis like Ernst Rohm who definitely had left-wing views on economic matters, but capitalists prospered quite well under Hitler once he came to power and any left-wing theoretical elements in Nazism were almost completely forgotten as Hitler and his cronies marched Europe to war by 1939.

    For the record, I detest both far right and far left politics and ideologies. Both quash liberty and what has made America great above all things has been freedom (which sadly is in jeopardy today due to an ever expanding government, PC/MC nonsense and a movement away from rugged individualism.)

  40. says

    Yes, I agree; the further left, the bigger the collective aspirations. However, our first order principles, ie definitions of the left/right spectrum differ too much to agree on the fundamentals.

    (To put nazism firmly into the left camp will clear those muddied waters that are so holding back the fight against the Islamic propaganda machine, shored up by their useful idiot enablers in the media. A simple line of left (the bad) and right (the good) avoiding the occam’s razor of too much right… right of centre probably being the best place to be. It needs to be kept simple to be readily understood by the confused masses. I have a feeling though this strategy will have no future).