Hindutva and the “Unfinished Partition”

Aakash is an interesting Indian Hindu living in the US who rejects much Indian Hindu culture as insipid, toxic and diseased, yet still embraces a Hindu identity. He also admits that caste is crap and it needs to go. Surely a casteless Hinduism could be formulated since all religions are human creations.

If religions are human creations, than Hinduism was created by man. If so, it could be constantly molded by men too.

Many religions have been through Reformations. The horrors of Early Christianity are long gone and probably never to return. Not long ago, non-Catholics were told to convert or die. That’s not happening anywhere no, and there are no Inquisitions on the horizon either. Lands are no longer conquered by Christendom, nor are heathens put to the sword. Christian heathens are not burned at the stake. Religious authorities are no longer in charge of Christian states via the throne or otherwise. In all of Christendom, separation of church and state is nearly complete. No Christian justifies slavery anymore or owns slaves.

If Christianity can go through a Reformation, Hinduism surely can too since it is generally less divinely inspired than Christianity.

Aakash:

Robert

While the attempt to finish partition is indeed a primary driving force for the Hindutvas, the bigger picture needs to be understood here.

Ask yourself the question: was the partition of India on religious basis fair or Justified? If anybody believes that it was, it was the most unfortunate event in the history of Hindus. The fact that by force (as in west Pakistan) or genocide (east Pakistan), Hindus have been eliminated in Pakistan and Bangladesh while Muslims still to this day have a strong presence in India has to hurt even the most rational of Hindus.

Ironically, this is where the Hindutvadis are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of focusing on the objective to expose the “nations” Pakistan and Bangladesh and showing solidarity with whatever number of Hindus that remain there, their hatred extends to all Muslims in general including Arabs, Turks, Persians etc who have nothing to do with present day India.

Hindutva movement is at best a display of high entropy randomness swinging from hating Muslims in general extending all the way to couples holding hands (most of them being Hindus themselves). There is no identity and will never be one simply because it has zero left wing element to it. Majority of poor in India are Hindus themselves and the Hindu right wing does nothing for them.

If, on the other hand, you believe (like I do) that the partition of India, if at all, should have been based on a more logical basis such as language/region, I urge you to start writing articles calling for the elimination of the rogue state of Pakistan and the shitty country that is Bangladesh.

I can understand Hindutva rage and where it is coming from. But the way they go about their business lacks reason and subtlety to say the least. This is in line with other South Asian crazies like Muslims.

Aakash is absolutely correct. The partition in a sense was a crime. Hindus were more or less ethnically cleansed in one way or another from both Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Pakistan, they were mostly just made to disappear via emigration and conversion to Islam (some of the conversion was pretty much forcible). In Bangladesh, Pakistani Muslims and their often Islamist collaborators massacred 3 million people, maybe 80% if whom were Hindus. It was truly a genocide. There are about 13% Hindus left in Bangladesh, and they are subject to regular serious persecution whereby their neighborhoods are burned to the ground and some of them are killed. It’s not quite Gujarat, but it’s nearly Kristallnacht.

Blaming Bangladeshi Muslims seems wrong as Bangladeshi society is horribly divided on this question. The more secular minded folks associated with a Congress-like party are outraged at the genocide, perhaps because a lot of Muslims were also killed. The more Islamist-minded mostly think the genocide was all well and good. An Islamist was recently put on trial for war crimes committed during the war, and this ignited passions in Bangladeshi society that have left a number of folks dead amid serious riots. Indian Hindus need to realize that a large section of Bangladeshi society thinks the genocide of 1971 was a horrific crime.

But on the surface, it does look unfair. Bangladesh and Pakistan were nearly cleansed of Hindus, yet there remains many Muslims in India. However, in the case of India and Bangladesh, the comparison is not a good one. India is 13% Muslim, and Bangladesh is 13% Hindu, so the proportions are the same, though the Hindus of Bangladesh look to be on the decline, and Muslims in India are set to rise.

One problem is that Islam always offers an out to the persecuted infidels, which does make Islam better than most forms of racism. In most racism, there really is no way out. In Nazi Germany, even converting to Christianity was enough to save a Jew as the persecution was racially inspired. One can hardly change one’s race at any rate.

Persecuted infidels in Muslim nations can always convert to Islam, and then the persecution will generally grind to a halt. This option is often heavily encouraged in Muslim nations as infidels are often under varying degrees of pressure to convert. Infidel females in particular are often kidnapped by Muslim men, raped and forced to convert. Intermarriage is another way as a Muslim man can marry an infidel woman and the children will all be raised Muslim, hence the infidel woman’s offspring are lost to the infidels. Female Muslims, the breed stock of Islam, are forbidden to marry out or if they do, the infidel man just convert. Islam gets the intermarried either way.

Muslims, no matter how they intermarry, end up having their offspring raised as Muslims. This is the sort of religion that is nearly programmed to multiply like a bacterium, a weed or an amphibian. In most societies, the Muslim population will tend to rise as the infidel population will tend to decrease. This simply another form of Islamic conquest, this one being the “jihad of the womb.”

I do not believe that Bangladesh or Pakistan should be broken up, at least not now. Pakistan actually needs breaking, but not until India breaks too. Neither one will split without or before the other, so neither will break up. If India breaks up, they lose to Pakistan. If Pakistan breaks up, they lose to India. Both nations are paranoid of the other, China and the US and they fear assimilation by outside powers.

The Basque Independence Movement

Repost from the old site.

Although it is not a popular cause in the US, this blog strongly supports the armed struggle of ETA, the armed Basque nationalist Red front. The Basque cause is very poorly known in the US and probably in most of the rest of the world, hence, here is a bit of a primer.

The Basque people are probably the last remaining group of the original populations that inhabited Europe before the Indo-European (IE) invasion and conquest about 8000 years ago. The best theory indicates that the IE people probably came out of the southern Ukraine near the Black Sea.

Their first stop was Anatolia, and this is why the Hittite languages (ancient languages of Anatolia, or Turkey) are by far the most divergent languages in the IE language family.

In fact, I subscribe to a controversial theory that renames Indo-European as Indo-Hittite due to this deep split. For those who don’t know about the IE language family, IE, or proto-IE (PIE), was the mother tongue of most of the languages of Europe.

European languages in the IE family include English, German, French, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Irish, Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldavian, Albanian, Slovenian, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Lithuanian and Latvian and some lesser-known ones.

A few tongues in Europe are non-IE, such as Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Estonian and Basque. Outside of Europe, we have some other IE languages in some pretty distant places, including Kurdish, Persian, Hindi, Urdu, Pashto, Sanskrit and a variety of languages related to them that are not well known by Westerners.

Apparently a divergent group of PIE left the PIE homeland and moved into the area of India, Iran and Afghanistan thousands of years ago.

Before the IE people spread out over Europe 8000 years ago, Europe was home to a variety of peoples who are very poorly known. Almost nothing is known about their civilizations (such as they existed), who they were, what they did, how they lived, what they ate, much less what languages they spoke.

The original inhabitants of Europe at this time weren’t Cro-Magnons, but they weren’t exactly Manhattan metrosexuals with cell phones either. After the IE people spread out across Europe, they apparently displaced, intermarried with, or wiped out almost all of the indigenous people of Europe.

One group that held out for a while were the Etruscans, residents of Italy. We actually have some retained some scraps of the Etruscan language somehow, but it doesn’t seem obviously related to anything else. The only other group that held out was apparently the Basques.

The theory that the Basques are the last remaining original inhabitants of Europe has long been a popular theory based on the fact that the Basque language is unlike any other language in Europe, or, really, in the world. Formally, Basque is considered to be a language isolate – not related to any other language.

However, I believe, based on very controversial theories, that Basque is related to some languages of the Caucasus (such as Chechen), an obscure group of Siberian tongues known as the Ket Family, an obscure language in far northern Pakistan called Burushaski, and also to the vast Sino-Tibetan family, of which Chinese is the most famous member.

Basque seems to me to be closest to various Caucasian languages. The latest genetic research has shown that the Basques have a blood type frequency that is divergent from all other populations in Europe. Interestingly, the closest people with this blood frequency are in the Caucasus Mountains.

In their mountain hideaways, the rugged Basques fought off many intruders and managed to keep a lot of other conquerors out of their hair with a hands-off attitude. Although the Romans conquered the area, they basically left the Basques pretty much alone as too much hassle, a common attitude of many conquerors that came through the region.

The Basques converted to Christianity along with the rest of Europe, and are known for their passionate, conservative Catholicism. With the consolidation of the Spanish nation, the question of how to deal with the Basques came up. For centuries, most governments in Spain and France preferred to pretty much leave the Basques alone.

During the Spanish Civil War in 1936-39, the Basque Region was a hotbed of Communism, Socialism, Anarchism and all varieties of Leftism. It was a major Republican stronghold. The Spanish Anarchists even “ruled” parts of the Basque country for part of this time, probably the only time in history that any humans have ever lived under anarchist “rule”.

The Basques fought very hard against fascism. Picasso’s famous “Guernica” painting is a painting of the Franco-Nazi air raid on the city of Guernica in the Basque Country, a raid that killed 6,000 people and outraged the world. A Basque Communist female fighter named “La Passionara” became quite famous.

The flood of Nazi guns was too much for the Republicans. The Republicans lost the war and fascism, in the persona of Generalissimo Franco, came to Spain. During World War 2, many Basques fought for the resistance against the Nazis, especially in France. The Basque region was known as a major redoubt and rear base for the French resistance.

When Franco came to power, a new chapter of history opened for the Basque struggle. Franco tried to consolidate Spain as no ruler ever had before. He demanded that all regional minorities adopt a “Spanish” mindset, language and loyalty. He ferociously tried to wipe out all vestiges of the Basque, Catalan and Galician languages and cultures.

Catalans speak a Romance language in between Spanish and French and live along the southern coast of Spain by the French border in and around Barcelona. The Romance family is a subfamily of IE that is derived from Latin. Romance includes Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Catalan, Sardinian, Corsican, Romansh (an obscure language in Switzerland) and some lesser-known tongues.

Galicians speak a dialect of Portuguese, believe it or not, and live along the rocky northern coast of Spain by the border with Portugal. Many Galicians are fishermen.

The Basque people resisted Franco for a while, but he put many of them in prison and really hurt the Basque movement. In 1959, a faction broke away from the Basque Nationalist Movement, formed the ETA, and took up arms.

They planted several bombs in Spanish cities that year. In 1968 , the ETA officially adopted armed struggle. The insurgency has been going on for 46 years now, though it is not as strong as it used to be.

Hardly any Americans realize the significant level of support for even the armed insurgency in the Basque country of Spain. As of a few years ago, there were regular street protests and even riots, as young nationalists run amok through the streets, smashing stuff and writing graffiti.

I have seen video footage in the past decade of very militant pro-ETA rallies in the Basqueland with large crowds of supporters milling around.

Many folks you would consider to be regular folks – middle-class people who dress well, drive nice cars and have good jobs – are strong supporters of even the armed Basque movement. It’s quite a shock to see dowdy-looking housewife types and middle-aged office workers with potbellies angrily waving banners supporting the ETA bombers.

Yet this is the reality of popular support for Basque nationalism, even the armed wing, in the Basque Country. Although Batasuna, the political wing of the ETA, was banned recently, another party took its place and garnered around 15-20% of the vote. Total support for complete independence in the Basque Country or Euskara, as they call it, is around 35-40%, or possibly higher, in my opinion.

Note: I just spoke to a German Communist friend of mine about the support level for the independence movement in Basqueland. Here is what he said: “Oh, I think almost all Basques support full independence. And even many Spanish migrants in Basqueland don’t really oppose the ETA or the independence movement.”

Note the presence of Spanish migrants who have moved into the Basque Country, mostly to take jobs. They are really the wild card in any poll about levels of independence support in Basqueland.

What is the struggle about, anyway? Well, a significant number of the Basque people (maybe almost 100% – see above) want independence from Spain.

Possibly a lesser number desire independence from France, but the struggle in French Basqueland is another matter and beyond the scope of this post. The Spanish government has always refused to hold a referendum on independence for Euskara, a key Basque demand.

The Czech Republic split from Slovakia, referendums have been held on independence in Scotland and Quebec, and yet Spain bucks the tide in the civilized world. The economy is surely a stickler. The Basque country holds much of Spain’s heavy industry, and how well Spain would fare economically after Basque succession is largely unknown. But it should at least be a subject of discussion, and Spain has put it out of limits.

As long as Spain refuses to provide a Basque referendum on independence, the Basque struggle, including probably the armed front, will go on. That’s all there is to it. Spain can end the insurgency tomorrow by opening peace talks with the ETA (Spain has never done this) and ultimately agreeing to hold a referendum on Basque independence.

An interesting sidelight to the Basque struggle is the role of women and feminism in the conflict. Some of the toughest ETA cadre have been women, often tougher than the men. And ETA male fighters, though nominally Marxist, have long been known to hold surprisingly conservative, Old World type views on the role of women in Basque society, opinions heavily tinged by conservative Catholicism.

Are Mexican Emigrants Destined to Recreate Mexico?

Inaki writes:

Robert, I think it is urgent we say it is because of culture, not race or biology that a person can create a bad condition. Of course, you generalized by saying “Everywhere a Mexican goes in the world, he can only recreate the disaster that is Mexico.” Of course, not all Mexicans are the same, just like you wouldn’t say, “Whatever human being comes out of Mexico is mestizo”… that would miss a large segment of that population.

You say Mexico is Mexico because it’s filled with Mexicans, but you know what? Mexicans can be programmed to have a different culture, so it’s not something permanent. No nation or culture remains the same, as you might know since you have studied the history, culture, religion, language, ethnicity, and race of people and how these change over time. I foresee Mexico becoming different as a society, just like the US will become a different society in terms of cultural beliefs.

I guess it depends on the type of Mexicans.

To be honest, in the towns and cities that Mexicans have seriously taken over here in California, in general, they have not reproduced the catastrophe that is Mexico.

Schooling functions here, and most go to school at least to high school, whereas in Mexico, you have many still dropping out at 2nd grade. The schools are well funded, whereas the funding for Mexican schools in nightmarish. Medical services are well funded here, whereas in Mexico, you might wait in line 24 hours at a public clinic. The class hatred that one sees in Mexico is in little evidence here. The extreme abuse of labor by bosses is also not common here, though it is reproduced by Mexican farm labor bosses in the fields, it is true.

The Catholic Church has not yet destroyed my state. California women have full rights in all senses and gays have very good rights here. Mexicans here are rather lackadaisical about their Catholicism, and Mexican-American politicians are fully liberal on all social issues. All Mexican-American politicians are strong liberals, for the poor and working classes and against the rich. There are no stooge parties for the rich as you see in Mexico. Everyone has a toilet here that goes to a nice sewage treatment plant, while 27% of Mexicans send their sewage right into rivers and oceans. There are no beggars on the streets, and pathetic child beggars in rags are nonexistent.

Corrupt cops Mexican style are not common, and US Army is not corrupt at all, nor is it involved in law enforcement. Most Mexican-American politicians are not corrupt here, whereas 100% of Mexican pols are horribly corrupt. We don’t have human shit flying through our very air as is the case in the nightmare called Mexico City with its shit-air phenomenon.

However, there are a few cities here that have gone nearly 100% Mexican or Mexican-American, and these places have been pretty clusterfucked.

In the Central Valley, Parlier is a 99% Hispanic city that is frankly simply “Mexico in the US”, complete with ugly corrupt pols and the whole nine yards. It’s sucking so bad that many Hispanics themselves are leaving to go to nearby towns that are still more or less American. Parlier is “Mexican-wrecked.”

Other Mexican wrecked towns are Bell and Bell Gardens in Southern California. These towns are so corrupt that they are have gone completely broke because the city money was all stolen. Last I heard they were in receivership, and the cities were being administered by outsiders.

But in general, most substantially to heavily Mexican or Hispanic towns in California are not Mexican-wrecked. There exists a decline from the previous level as a White town, but the decline is not to the level of Mexico. The more heavily Mexican towns look something like Mexico with a US overlay, however, it’s a substantially upgraded version of Mexico.

So Mexicans in the US are not really recreating Mexico, instead, they seem to be creating substantially upgraded versions of it with a heavy American overlay.

“Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret,” by Dr Bill Warner

This is a video by an Islamophobic (he calls himself a counter-jihadist) far rightwing activist in the US. As such, it rubs me the wrong way. I don’t like US reactionary Islamophobia. It’s retarded.

On the other hand, most of what this reactionary scholar says about Islam is true. The Muslims are in a similar situation with US Blacks. Just as the behavior of Blacks gives ammunition to their haters, the same is true with Muslims. If so many Blacks and Muslims didn’t act so bad in the first place, there would be little hatred and discrimination against them.

Hence it’s a sad fact about Islam that much of what Islamophobes accuse it of is actually true. This is especially true if we look at Islam historically as opposed in its moderated essence. The era of the Caliphates when all of Islam lived under Islamic Law shows us the true essence of Islam. The modern secular era and the reactionary Islamist backlash against it is but a distortion.

The scholar points out the obvious: The Golden Age of Islam in Spain and Baghdad was anything but. It was only tolerant and open-minded in comparison to the backwardness and reactionary stupidity that preceded and followed these eras.

To be fair, most religions have been pretty backwards in a historical sense. The Catholic Church committed many outrages against heretics and even the advancement of science.

Traditional Talmudic Judaism in Europe was a miasma of backwardness, superstition and stupidity under a “dictatorship of the rabbis” as Israel Shahak painfully points out. It is this prison of idiocy that the formation of Orthodox Judaism in the late 1800′s sought to return the Jews to, and it is this nightmare of totalitarian nonsense that the Reform and Conservative Jews want to swim away from.

Jews only began to climb out of this hole when Napoleon tore down the walls of the ghettos and welcomed the Jews into secular society. Through the 19th Century, most progressive thinkers regarded the Jews that emerged from centuries in the ghetto as damaged creatures in need of assimilation to society to heal them.

But back to the video.

Warner points out that Islam has always been an expansionist religion.

Those of my mother’s generation, wise and correct about so many things, often said, “Islam was spread by the sword. It was convert or die.” This is not completely true, but there is much fact behind this. Muslims did not always offer that stark choice to the conquered or the dhimmis, but they offered it often enough. In jihadi-stricken areas today, Muslims continue to occasionally make this demand of infidels. We have some recent reports out of Iraq of such demands.

Even after conquest, repression and dhimmitude slowly withered away non-Muslim majorities down to the tiniest of minorities. This constant repression was combined with occasional massacres and even horrific and sometimes genocidal wars.

Once again, let us look to our elders.

Those in my mother’s generation noted about the Armenian genocide and the genocide in East Timor: “Yes, but the Turks were killing the Armenians because they were Christians. And the Indonesians were killing the East Timorese because they were Christians.” I, being PC, protested this forbidden account, but my elders just shook their heads. “No, they killed them because they were Christians. That’s how Islam works.”

We who went through the revolutions of the 1960′s ridicule our elders as old fashioned and bigoted fogeys. We have carved out a new way, a way of liberation, Political Correctness. But it turns out in so many ways that our elders were right, and we revolutionaries were wrong. Among other things, my elders understood the nature of Islam.

Warner points out correctly that not only was Islam spread by sword, it made continuous raids on neighboring non-Muslim regions including Europe. The attempts were to conquer them for the Muslims. He also suggests that the Dark Ages were caused by Islam’s war on Christian Europe. That is certainly a provocative topic in our PC times, but he may be correct. He also points out that the wars of conquest never really ended until the fall of the Caliphate in 1918.

Where I feel he is wrong is in assigning all modern Islamist attacks to jihadi attempts to conquer the infidels. Instead, most such wars are occurring in Muslim lands or in majority Muslim lands in non-Muslim states. Examples are the jihads in Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines and northern Nigeria. In all of these wars, sickening slaughters of non-Muslim civilians have taken place for no other reason than “kill the infidels.”

The horrific bombings in India appear to be some sort of a “war on the infidels.” Most other jihadi attacks are attacks on non-Muslim minorities in Muslim lands (typical Muslim persecution of minorities that tends to go on as background under Muslim rule.)

I disagree with Warner that the attacks in Europe are jihadi attacks aimed at conquering Europe for the infidels. Instead, the attacks seem to be Muslim retaliatory attacks against Western wars in Muslim lands (say Iraq) and against non-Muslims who harshly criticize Islam (Theo Van Gogh killing.)

The 9-11 attacks were not attempt to violently convert us as so many misguided folks think (including my Mother’s generation). Instead, Al Qaeda attacked the US as an enemy state that was killing the Muslims in various parts of the world, propping up the Israeli enemy and occupying the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

It’s a sad state of affairs when the only people who are complaining about this backwards, violent and barbaric religion are backwards, violent, barbaric, and often-Christian reactionaries in the West. This ideological war is really a war of reactionaries against reactionaries, one fundamentalist group against another.

Amidst all of this, the secular Left, ostensibly opposed to obscurantist barbarism, has lined up with one set of reactionaries (the Islamists) against the other set (fundamentalist Christians). It makes no sense. A reactionary fundamentalist is a reactionary fundamentalist. The flavors matter little as it all digests the same in the end.

Mitt Romney Supports Banning Birth Control!

Mitt Romney says states should have the right to ban birth control, incredibly enough!

This goes back to a Supreme Court case in 1965 that decided that states did not have the right to ban the sale of birth control. At the time, a number of states, particularly Catholic ones, banned the sale of contraceptives, which is hard to believe. One state that comes to mind is Massachusetts (Irish and Italian Catholics). The SC ruled that such bans violated the right to privacy. The state had no right to regulate commerce in such a way as to ban the right of the individual to practice birth control.

Mitt Romney’s view of sex, abortion, contraception and marriage:

1. Get married young, when you are both virgins.
2. No masturbation before or after marriage please.
3. Have normal marital relations without using contraceptives as they are in opposition to God’s plan for us.
4. Have lots and lots of kids that you can’t even afford. Please don’t abort any of the fetuses. Even 8-cell cell clusters have souls you know.
5. Make the woman take care of all the kids while Dad goes off and makes a bunch of money.

Interview with the Leader of Colombia’s ELN Guerrillas

Pretty amazing interview with the leader of Colombia’s ELN (National Liberation Army) guerrillas. The ELN was formed by a rebel Catholic priest named Camilo Torres in 1964. He was one of the original “priest with a machine gun” types that we later saw a lot of in Latin America. Some later leaders were also priests. The ELN has always been very big on Catholicism and Liberation Theology. Many of their fighters are either religious Catholics or came form Catholic families. I don’t know what their ideology is precisely, but I doubt if they are Marxist materialist atheists. Press reports often described them as “pro-Cuban.” This group has always been smaller than the larger FARC. FARC has a good relationship with many Catholic priests in the areas where it operates, but I understand that ideologically, they are atheists.

Liberation Theology is leftwing Catholicism, mostly out of Latin America but increasingly seen in the Philippines too. It is Catholicism with strong Leftist, socialist or even Marxist POV. They believe in exercising “the preferential option for the poor.” In other words, to help the poor first and foremost. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua were big on Liberation Theology, and some of their leaders were priests. Many Sandinistas were practicing Catholics. The FMLN in El Salvador was also into Liberation Theology (the assassinated priest Oscar Romero was preaching Liberation Theology). Many members of the FMLN were practicing Catholics. In Honduras, an American priest, an Irish Catholic, went to the country in the early 1980′s and formed a guerrilla band. He was quickly killed in combat. The URNG in Guatemala was also aligned with Liberation Theology. The Shining Path in Peru were militant atheists, however, many of the rank and file were practicing Catholics. The rebel Edith Lagos was very popular in Ayacucho. Her funeral was held in a Catholic Church in Ayacucho and was attended by 30,000 people, almost the whole town. The casket was draped with a hammer and sickle flag. It is even said that the Shining Path leader, Abimael Guzman, is a practicing Catholic.

The idea behind Liberation Theology is not just that Jesus was a socialist or even a Communist. It’s Jesus Christ as a revolutionary, running around in the jungle with a machine gun. It’s a bit of a reach given Jesus’ pacifism, but that’s how they see it.

During the civil wars in the region, charging a priest with preaching Liberation Theology was often a death sentence (particularly in El Salvador). Such accusations were often followed by a murder or attempted murder.

The ELN has its greatest strength in the eastern part of the country near the Venezuelan border. They have traditionally been strongest in this region. There has been some bad blood between tehm and the FARC which has led to deadly battles in the past. However, the FARC and the ELN have recently signed a peace treaty and not long ago, they carried out joint operations in a Colombian region that resulted ion major losses for the paramilitaries.

As Gabino notes, the areas where the ELN operates are “red zones.” Peasants living in these zones risk being arrested, beaten, tortured or typically just killed if they go outside the region to go to the market or whatever. This is one of the main reasons why so many young people in these zones join the guerrilla. If the government’s going to come out and try to kill you anyway, you might as well fight back against them instead of waiting around for them to kill you. Gabino also states that ELN spends much of its time defending the civilian population in its zone against government attacks.

Gabino also places the blame for the war on the state which has made peaceful politics on the Left impossible due to repression. If the state could open up a space for peaceful politics on Left, the war could then end, since that was the reason that the Left took up arms.

The ELN is said to have ~5,000 fighters under arms. That is probably correct. They have been said to have been on the ropes for some time now, but I do not believe that is correct, as the ~5,000 man army figure has been steady for many years.

Here.

Marcha is the only Argentine media outlet that has managed to interview Comandante Nicolás Rodríguez Bautista “Gabino,” historic leader of the ELN [National Liberation Army] of Colombia, to speak about the upcoming peace negotiations with the FARC-EP [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples' Army]. “We wish every success to the FARC,” he asserts, and calls for “the participation of the different popular sectors” at the negotiations table.

Since Colombian President [Juan Manuel] Santos publicly announced the agreement to begin peace negotiations with the FARC, little has been heard from the other historical guerrilla group in the country, the National Liberation Army.

Up to now, the only ELN leader who has spoken is Carlos Marín Guarín, “Pablito,” a member of the Eastern Front, where the highest levels of insurgent activity have been maintained. In a collective interview given to a group of national and international correspondents in Argentina and broadcast by Carthage TV, Guarín stated: “Our commander Nicolás Rodríguez Bautista is in charge as leader [of the ELN], and is responsible for setting the parameters [of the negotiations] with those concerned.”

Rodríguez Bautista, known as “Comandante Gabino,” has been a member of the guerrilla force since it was formed in 1964. From a Christian family, he was appointed to leadership in 1998 after the death of the priest and guerrilla leader, Manuel Pérez Martínez.

Marcha’s correspondent in Colombia managed to contact him at the last moment and conduct the following interview, where the historic leader of the ELN elaborates on how this organization plans to address this new stage in the political struggle of his country.

Marcha: Why are the FARC and not the ELN in the peace talks that were recently announced?

Gabino: First of all, accept a friendly greeting from the ELN of Colombia, with our desire to maintain this open line of communication. We hope the brotherhood of our peoples forever unites us under the banner of our historical leaders, such as San Martín, Bolívar, Artigas, Che, Camilo Torres and many other fighters for freedom and democracy.

In the dialogue with President [César] Gaviria in the 1990s of the last century, the [whole] insurgency was at the same table. At the other times, each guerrilla force was negotiating separately. The ELN considers having the insurgency around the same negotiating table as the most promising approach to the peace process. And we must strive to make this a reality. This requires levels of unity and we are taking steps to have this happen.

We are respectful of the process started by the government with the FARC compañeros and wish them every success. We hope that over time the process now started separately may come together at one table because, except for some differences, we are forces with similar goals, which is the most important thing.

Marcha: What are today, in Colombia, the requirements for this peace that is back on everyone’s lips, even President Santos’?

Gabino: Most Colombians are weary of an internal war that has lasted over 50 years. The various social sectors have been organizing and speaking about a political solution that concludes with an end of the conflict. This is the case with the Congress of the Peoples, which is promoting a peace congress for next year. Similarly, a large number of popular and social organizations have expressed themselves, saying peace is urgent.

When speaking of reaching a peaceful settlement, all Colombians are hoping that this time has come. The problem is that we understand and want it in different ways, and according to different interests. The vast majority of Colombians, including the insurgency, believe that peace means social justice and equality, democracy and sovereignty.

In contrast, for the ruling class peace is achieved when it defeats the internal enemy on the battlefield, which President Santos reaffirmed days before the announcement of the start of the talks with the FARC.

To be stable and enduring, a peace process under the conditions in Colombia requires the participation not only of the insurgency and the government, but also of different popular sectors, who are the ones bearing the brunt of the war. It is understood that peace requires a long and complex process, which confronts powerful enemies who pocket enormous dividends from the war.

Marcha: What is the social situation like in the communities where the ELN operates?

Gabino: In the communities where the ELN is present, they are experiencing a true state of war. These territories are commonly known as “red zones” and are subject to ongoing military and police operations. They control the movements of the population there, rationing supplies, particularly food and medicines, using the pretext that these goods are bound for the guerrillas.

Punitive government forces, allied with paramilitary forces, act as an occupying force, subjecting the population to all kinds of indignities and repressive actions.

In the regions where farmers subsist on illicit crops such as coca leaves, [the communities] are accused of being owners of these crops and are subjected to permanent spraying of the fungicide glyphosate, destroying crops of coca leaf and the other agricultural products [and] causing irreparable damage to animals and people, especially children, the elderly and pregnant women.

This repression has cost a considerable mass of people their legal status. They cannot go out to the urban centers to escape permanently from such territories because the armed forces consider them military targets.

This creates a very serious situation for many families whose only protection is the insurgency, so the insurgency must assume responsibility for their protection during operations by government forces. This reality is not new and is one of the explanations why many young peasants have no choice but to become guerrillas.

Marcha: Based on past experience, how do they think they can finish this new attempt at dialogue?

Gabino: Despite previously unsuccessful dialogues, we look today with expectations of the possibility of opening a serious and realistic path to peace, as is demanded by the national majority, already worn out by more than half a century of social and armed conflict that has gone beyond all limits. The ruling class could not defeat the insurgency, nor could it defeat the popular movement, despite the cruelty of the dirty war and state terrorism.

The government forces, assisted by the U.S. and Israel, have tested and applied the experiences of other wars, but despite the cruelty, both popular movements and the insurgency remain in action.

We believe that with this stubborn reality, the true way to move forward is by what we call a “political solution to the conflict,” which means that only through open dialogue, involving not only the insurgents and the government but also the most popular and diverse social expressions, will we be able to reach a responsible agreement to overcome the causes that produced the armed uprising, bilaterally stop confrontation and assume reconstruction, overcoming the deep crisis that has destroyed the social fabric and that broke the normal coexistence.

The ELN has urged a political solution to the conflict for over 20 years. The five previous governments took this proposal as weakness and tried to use it for military advantage. This time, it seems that the ruling class more realistically assumes responsibility for building peace, as demanded by the national majority.

Marcha: How does the insurgency see its future in Colombia in the years to come? Does it consider the possibility of withdrawing from the armed struggle and putting all its strength into the political struggle?

Gabino: We have taken up arms for almost 50 years because the legal and wider popular struggle did not have political and legal guarantees. When this perverse logic is changed and there are guarantees and respect for the people’s struggle, the people will not be forced to take up arms to achieve their rights. But that decision is in the hands of the Colombian ruling class. As they say, the ball is in their court.

And if after 50 years of fratricidal war, they are ready to recognize the majority’s right to justice and social equality, democracy and sovereignty, the country will be heading toward peace. Of course, this is not achieved through a decree, but it is urgent to open the path in that direction.

So we do not see that the solution is the demobilization and disarmament of the insurgents. That formula has been tried and failed because the essence of the conflict is social and gave rise to the armed uprising. Then we have to go to the cause that gave rise to this and seek solutions. Only then will we go to the heart of the matter to make changes and overcome the problems.

Zionology or Żydokomuna?

Repost from the old site.

The Jews complain that no matter what they do, they get blamed. And to a certain extent, the Ashkenazi at least, owing to their high IQ’s and possibly other factors, have led many modern movements since they emerged from Europe’s ghettos around 1800. Hence it leads us to one of the paradoxes of the modern world: the Jews of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, especially after World War 2.

Were they are bunch of traitorous Communists, who worked with the Soviet Union to destroy the nations of Eastern Europe, and inside the Soviet Union, to keep down the poor Russian Christians? This is theory known as Żydokomuna, a Polish compound neologism meaning Jewish Communism.

The theory that Communism in Eastern Europe was Jewish is an essential trope of East European nationalists, especially the Poles. The Poles were Catholic and Communism was never very popular there. It is true that Stalin brought in Jews to help run the government in Poland because he did not trust the Poles.

The Polish Jews, or what was left of them after the Shoah anyway, were attracted to Communism because it was explicitly opposed to anti-Semitism. In short, Communism offered the Jews an escape from the unpleasant and sometimes deadly nature of Polish nationalism, Catholicism and anti-Semitism (which in practice, tended to merge).

Stalin, on the other hand, while at first supporting the new state of Israel, soon came to oppose Israel, as it cemented an alliance with the capitalist West. Instead, Stalin supported some of Israel’s Arab enemies.

At the same time, Stalin began seeing many of the Soviet Jews, newly energized with nationalism in the form of Zionism, as being either traitors or potential traitors. A number of unfortunate campaigns ensued, including the notorious doctor’s plot, in which a group of Jewish doctors was accused of trying to kill Stalin, a case that authorities later admitted was entirely made up.

A number of Soviet Jews were executed in these plots. There is considerable evidence that Stalin was not a true anti-Semite. When challenged about his new-found suspicion of some Soviet Jews, he said, “You do not understand. They are all Zionists.”

So Stalin was really opposed to Zionism, not Jews. And the paranoid Stalin treated Jews no worse than any other suspect nationality. Two of these sorry campaigns were the campaign against the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee of the Soviet Union and the campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism“.

Scores of Soviet Jews were executed as a result of these campaigns. One of the unfortunate campaigns that ensued was a field of studies called Zionology, in which anti-Zionism was merged with traditional anti-Semitism in a sorry spectacle of betrayal of Communist anti-racist ideals.

Zionology really got underway after the 1967 Six-Day War, a watershed event for the Arabs, for US Jews, and as it turns out, for the Soviet Union. Stalin’s main beef was that many or most of the Soviet Jews were working for Western intelligence. Now we find that Stalin had some valid reasons to be paranoid.

Now a shocking article in Debka, the Israeli website with connections to Mossad, reveals that the famed mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, worked as a CIA agent for many years after Israel’s independence. Kollek revealed that many East European Jews were working for the CIA, who networked them via Israel to the US. This began in 1946, just after WW2.

Members of the Jewish communities of the Soviet Union may also have been used as spies by the CIA in this endeavor. Stalin may have executed a number of innocent Jews after WW2 in the Soviet Union, but he had ample reason to be suspicious of some Soviet Jews.

So, the Jews of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union – were they Commies or CIA agents? Maybe a little of both?

The Catholic Church Has Had Its Own Reformation

I asked commenter Atheist Indian whether the Catholic Church had gone through any reformations. He replied that the Church had gone through a reformation of its own:

With the advent of Renaissance in Europe and the subsequent loss of its authority and hold on public life, the Catholic church had to evolve to survive in a world where intellectualism could flourish, without being able to prosecute what it felt where ‘heretic’ thoughts and ideas.

Feudalism, which enjoyed the support and patronage of the church, waned and wore off in a post-Renaissance reality where “all men are born equal” (or as equal as can be, in those times). The church and Christianity as a religion went from an infallible public authority to something that is a lifestyle choice, like whether to wear skirts or not.

I agree with him about Catholicism. The Church stopped burning heretics, quit interfering in science, and in the 20th Century, has moved much further towards socialism than Protestants ever have. Even hardcore “traditional Catholic” types are quite socialist on economics. Typically they support producerism and distributism and rail against both capitalism and socialism as evils. It’s quite obvious that laissez faire capitalism is a profoundly anti-Christian doctrine. It doesn’t take much thinking to figure that out.

Of course, liberal Catholics have been socialist minded forever now. Here in the US, the Church heirarchy always supports “the preferential option of the poor” as they call Liberation Theology in Latin America. Meanwhile, Liberation Theology is a huge trend in Latin America.

No such obvious trend is visible anywhere in Protestantism, and in fact, fundamentalist Protestantism promotes a profoundly reactionary, feudalist, and anti-equality doctrine in Latin America. It’s pie in the sky when you die and kill the Catholic Commies. Rios Montt murdered 10-20,000 Guatemalan civilians in less than a year while Reagan cheered. He did this all in the name of “kill the Commie Catholics” doctrine.

Curiously, in Colombia, Protestants have long been regarded as possible Commies as they were not Catholic, and all good Colombians are Catholics. Suffice to say though that fundamentalist Protestantism is the leading edge of reaction in Latin America the same way it is the US, Canada and everywhere else on Earth. Protestantism is so reactionary nowadays that one could be forgiven if you thought that Catholicism was the reform movement and Protestantism was the backwards feudalist form from the Middle Ages. It’s as if Luther was never born.

In recent years, the Vatican has launched far ahead the Protestants in many ways. The Vatican settled their beef with the Jews to their credit. Papal encyclicals actually lent credence to Liberation Theology while exposing schisms in the Church. Recently, the Church stated that both alien life and evolution were completely compatible with Catholic teaching.

The Church has even stated that it is normal and acceptable for some persons to have homosexual impulses and feelings. The real reactionary elements in Christianity anymore are the Protestants – only Protestants oppose evolution.

In most Catholic countries, the Left is either in power or very powerful. Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, Austria and Poland all have or have had a strong Left. The Left is strong and armed in the Philippines, mostly because of Catholicism.

The Latin American Left is very strong in El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Haiti, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Venezuela and Ecuador. Here you have priests running around with machine guns fighting with armed guerrilla bands. Former priests are Leftist leaders in Haiti, Nicaragua and Paraguay.

Oakhurst, California

Repost from the old site.

Commenter huy (his blog is here) responds to the World O’ Crap, Meet World O’ Lies post with this very astute comment, that sums up completely a town where I spent 16 years of my life – Oakhurst, California. He’s captured the Zeitgeist of this town, and really all of White small town rural California perfectly.

My comments follow:

huy: It’s annoying to see Republicans call liberals elitist. Its playing to the stereotypical backward small town white Americans. “Us Republicans are like you guys only richer and with more class. We hate blacks and Homos. We love guns and bashing immigrants. We hate feminists. We are real men just like you, and the liberals are all mocaccino-drinking art fag homos unable to accept reality and the competition and ruthlessness of capitalism.”

The Republicans try to give the image that they share more personality traits with the white small town American (despite the fact that their policies shoot them in the foot) while the liberals are made to seem as out-of-touch elitist faggots who look down on the small town working class White Americans (despite the fact that the liberals’ policies do more to help the working class small town White Americans than any other party).

The Republicans want presidential campaigns based on personality traits and ‘values’, while the liberals want a campaign more centered around policies and how they affect the citizens and individual demographic groups within the US population and the economy.

A Republican can wear a cowboy hat and a lumberjack shirt, drink a beer, hold a rifle and say “homos can fuck off” and he’ll be sure to get a significant percentage of the less-educated more socially deprived small town American White vote.

Social Deprivation breeds ignorance and rightwing attitudes and the rich Republicans are abusing this social deprivation in small town America to maintain their presidential power and electorate. Religion also helps make people vote Republican, and religion is strongest amongst the poor and socially deprived.

Its a disgusting, feudal, immoral, sick game the Republicans are playing. By keeping the poor poor, they can preach the backward views fostered by poverty in order to stay in power and continue to exploit the very poor people who vote for them whilst the Republicans and tycoons own multi-million dollar estates and control the media to further control the minds of the poor and socially deprived and earn in billions.

The Republicans need poor small town White Americans to stay in power and stay rich, thus they do everything they can to prevent the social progression and economic development of small town America, because that would mean they would lose power, and also they want to spend as little money as possible on helping citizens anyway so they can spend more money on themselves and their businesses.

The Republicans are keeping the poor just wealthy enough not to complain, but preventing them from escaping enough social deprivation gaining enough and education and possibly economic development too so they don’t turn liberal.

Huy hits it spot-on, but there’s no point talking sense these Whites. Most of them are not rich at all, and those that are doing ok are usually making a lot less money than Whites in liberal bastions like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, so there’s no way to explain this stuff on a money basis. I guess you could try to explain it on a “we hate minorities” basis, but in these types of places, there are no minorities.

This is what I don’t get. If any Whites should vote “we hate niggers and Mexicans” (Republican = “we hate niggers and Mexicans”), it should be those in the cities that have the most contact with them. Surely at least some of those contacts are going to be quite unpleasant.

But if you ever find a 90%+ White area in California, rich or poor, it’s solidly Republican. Since there are no minorities around to hate, and those that are are well-behaved, how could they be voting “we hate niggers”? Apparently a lot of them are. Question is, how does voting Republican protect your pretty White towns and cities from the nigger and beaner hordes? It doesn’t. Not one bit.

Whites have been voting in an openly racist way for Republicans for years (as commenters at American Renaissance say, the Republican Party is the party of the Whites) and what have they got to show for it? Not a hill of beans.

The Republicans have been in a contest with the liberal Dems to see how many million illegal Mesoamericans they can flood into our country to wreck every White city and job in their path. Are Republicans passing laws legalizing housing discrimination against Blacks and Browns? Are they bringing back segregation? Are they bringing back Jim Crow? Are they sending all the niggers back to Africa? Course not.

So how does voting Republican benefit these Whites in their White towns in any racial way whatsoever? It doesn’t, and it can’t possibly.

Huy only briefly touched on the all-important Christian fundamentalist aspect. It’s everywhere in White rural America, and the fanaticism and insanity of these folks is something to see.

I’ll take the Hispanic Catholic Church any day over these loons. Catholicism, despite all its faults, is at least sane, and your average Catholic is a sane human being. I wish I could say that about a White fundamentalist. A White fundamentalist, no matter how intelligent, is seriously out of their fucking mind. I mean it.

In White small town America, just about every White is some kind of fundamentalist nutjob. Even those that aren’t are usually anti-abortion. Why? Who knows? Don’t they know that abortion kills way more Black and Brown babies than White babies? Guess not.

Living in Oakhurst, I generally avoided politics or religion. Just about every White you met was a Republican or a fundamentalist, or usually both, so you just kept away from those subjects and made friends anyway.

These are funny places. You have the Republicans who spent years in state prison and ride motorcycles and hate niggers and beaners. You have lots of speed freak Whites on meth, missing teeth and parts of their minds, and they all vote Republican, if they vote. The Republican Party has the White rural tweaker vote down pat. Why do the tweakers vote Republican, the party of the drug war? Family values? Don’t ask.

One really needs to ask what all these idiot fundamentalist Whites have gotten for voting Republican for all these years.

Someone tell me what the Republican Party has ever done for fundamentalists. Is abortion illegal yet? Are the fags in jail? Is porn illegal? What’s the point? The Republicans talk the fundamentalist talk, but they never deliver a thing. Yet every year, the White fundamentalists march off and vote Republican again and don’t get a damn thing in return.

If one could make a case that Republicans were good for low and average-income small town Whites, while Democrats were harmful to them, one could say that small town Whites are at least voting their economic interests. That’s not the case. The Republicans have never helped these small town Whites in any whatsoever, and in fact, their politics have been hostile to them.

Let’s look at statistics – since 1980, non-supervisory wages (80% of US workers) have risen by a mere 1%, despite very high cumulative economic growth and rising productivity all through that period. Other studies show that the bottom 90% of US income bracket has lost 7% of its income over 30 years, while the top 1% doubled their income.

Clearly, the Republicans don’t do jack for small town Whites making less than $80,000/yr or so. In fact, objectively, they fuck them over, year in and year out.

So why vote for em? As huy suggests, it’s all psychological. Living in these White towns, I can tell you, voting Democrat is virtually a sin. If you are young White male and vote Democrat, your peers will say, “But you’re White!” The Democratic Party is “the party of the niggers and Mexicans” as one young White Republican (one of most wild drug abusers I’ve ever met) told me.

And it’s more than that. If you are young, White, male and redneck-macho the way you are supposed to be in White rural America, voting Republican is frankly an assertion of masculinity. The Democratic Party is the party of the fags, and it seems that many young White males in the rural West vote Republican as an assertion of masculinity and a way to show that they are not even 1% queer, dammit.

Seriously, if you tell other White males in these towns you vote Democrat, they look at you like you’re not much of a man, or maybe even you are a little bit queer, or maybe more than a little bit?

In these towns, Whites buy groceries with food stamps and the doctors’ offices are filled with Whites in Medicaid. And probably 90% of them vote Republican. Guaranteed.

I don’t hate Oakhurst at all; I’ve made my peace with it. It’s a very peaceful, albeit somewhat boring, town, and there is almost no crime. You’re away from the diversity, the excitement, the petty crime, the gangs and dark-skinned Underclass, and it’s ok in a sleepy and pretty kind of way.

Photos of Anders Behring Breivik and an Exposition of His Treatise

Anders Breivik is of course the anti-Islamic Norwegian cultural conservative who killed 76 people in two attacks in Oslo, Norway the other day. Much nonsense has been written about these attacks. He wrote a manifesto, which I am currently reading. It’s 1,510 pages long. I’ve only read some of it – about 750 pages or so, but it’s very interesting. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that he is an important political thinker.

He’s simply a political terrorist like Osama bin Laden and his followers. He attacked arguably political institutions – first of all, buildings of the Norwegian state in an attempt to kill the Prime Minister, then later a youth camp for young leaders of Norwegian Labour Party. These are the elite children of the leadership of the party, and most of them will probably go on to become party political operative and even leaders. So it was a political attack by an armed terrorist organization.

The only thing yucky about the attack is that many of those targeted were children. Even if you argue that these kids were going to go on to become party political operatives and leaders, there is something nasty about killing unarmed minors. However, this aspect was overblown, and my analysis showed that about 2/3 of those killed were adults, making them legitimate targets.

I do not think that government officials and adults who are in line to become the future leadership of a political party are “innocent civilians,” sorry. This guy says he’s at war with the state, and in that role, political figures are certainly legitimate targets.

Photo of the seemingly normal shooter in a nice pose.

Not that I agree with his ideology or his goals. As a Leftist, of course I am saddened that my comrades were gunned down so cruelly like this. I also don’t agree with his anti-Islamic agenda.

His document is very interesting. I will have more to write about it. Much nonsense has been written about this guy which would have been dispelled with a simple review of his document, which apparently no one bothered to do.

The shooter in a scuba outfit with an automatic weapon. The insignia on his shoulder says "Marxist Hunter" and "Multicultural Traitor Hunting Permit."

The killer is a Christian fundamentalist. He most certainly is not! In fact, he states in his book that he lacks a personal relationship with Jesus or God. Nevertheless, he prayed before his operation, and he quotes liberally from the Bible, mostly Old Testament verse that dispels the notion that Christianity is a religion of peace. He quotes sections saying that Christians have a right to fight back against their enemies.

What this guy is is a cultural Christian. It’s a phrase he uses a lot. He even supports what he calls atheist Christians and agnostic Christians in his crusade against Islam. He feels that Europe is a culturally Christian continent, and of course he is right. He feels that this nominally Christian culture is in danger from the encroachment of Islam.

The killer is a racist. He’s not really a racist, though he flirts with it a bit. The document is confused in this regard. He states over and over that he is an anti-racist, but that’s not exactly the case either.

For instance, he does not believe that European Whites should breed with non-Whites. He worries about the allegiances of European non-White non-Muslims in the Civil War that he predicts will engulf Europe.

And he recommends that the US be partitioned off into a White state for Whites and a multicultural state for everyone else. So as far as his recommendations for the US go, he’s a White nationalist. He is also very sympathetic to the plight of the South African Afrikaners, and he feels that the Blacks are waging a race war against them. He acknowledges that Gypsies are widely hated, and he wants to set up a homeland for them somewhere in Anatolia after it is heavily cleansed of Muslims.

But he does enlist the support of non-White Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics in his war against the Muslims. He’s had many friends of all different races, and in his personal views, he’s not much of a racialist.

The killer in a photo, apparently with his mother and sister.

The killer is a fascist. This is more difficult to refute, though he claims to be an antifascist, and he writes a lot about how much he dislikes the National Socialist racists in Europe. In particular, as a Judeophile, he opposes their anti-Semitism, which he sees as ridiculous.

However, at the same time, he also praises certain aspects of National Socialism and offers an apologetics for Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. He acknowledges that the Holocaust occurred, but says that Hitler originally just wanted to deport the Jews, but was forced to exterminate them to get rid of a Fifth Column when the Nazis started losing the war in 1942. Actually, I think the Holocaust started before then. He also approves of National Socialist anti-feminism, monoculture and conservative values.

The killer in some sort of a military uniform.

At the same time, he sees the Nazi card as an albatross around the neck of European nationalists, and he says that they need to break free of that if they are ever going to succeed. He opposes White nationalism for similar reasons, that it will never get majority support from Europeans.

What he wants is majority support for his War on Islam project, and the best way to get that is to chuck the Nazism and White ethnic nationalism. He sees anti-Islamic nationalism as having potentially majority support, and he wants to get rid of all of the problematic elements that could diminish such support.

His political project involves rightwing coups in Europe that overthrow the multiculturalist states. They would then institute a short lived dictatorship in which rights would be suspended. 100-200,000 top level multiculturalist traitors would be hunted down and executed by the new state. Many others would be exiled. Freedom of speech would be curtailed indefinitely under the new regimes as “multiculturalist propaganda” would be banned.

Those Muslims who do not convert out would be deported from Europe back to Muslim lands. Muslim lands in the Balkans, Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt would be conquered and resettled with Greeks, Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Armenians, Assyrians and Copts. This is frankly a fascist project whether he admits it or not.

The killer in his Crusader Knights Templar uniform. He saw himself as a modern day Knight Templar waging a latter day crusade against Islam.

The killer is mentally ill. Having read through hundreds of pages of his stuff, I do not agree with this charge at all. Some of his politics is a bit confused, but that goes with the territory. On the other hand, the document is lucid, well-written and coherent. Ideologically, it fits together very well. He’s very intelligent and very well-read. His political project is sensible, well thought out and follows logically. He doesn’t believe in conspiracy theory, which makes him less nuts that your average Muslim or American.

The killer is a sociopath. I don’t agree. I think he is just a political terrorist. There are acts of political terrorism occurring all over the world, all the time. Those who engage in them and those who order them are not necessarily sociopaths. They are warriors, either members of militaries or some sort of guerrillas.

He actually seemed somewhat sensitive, and he spent quite a few pages agonizing over the nature of the acts he was about to engage in.

He concluded that Catholic Church absolves sins committed in the defense of religion, in particular in defense a Christian Crusade against Islam. This came up quite a bit back in the day when Crusaders were accused of sin during the various Crusades. The Church concluded that sins committed during the Crusades were absolved by the Church as necessary for the defense of the religion.

In addition, they could be redeemed via indulgences bought up by the collective good deeds of Jesus and the saints. By the theory of indulgences, sinners can redeem their sins by trading them in as it were for redemption. The redemption would be purchased via the good deeds done by Jesus, the saints and other good Christians.

At one point, he launches into an argument about whether it is a good idea to kill 100 to save 1000. He thinks it is.

On the other hand, he also feels that his targets, the multicultural Cultural Marxist elite of Europe, are traitors that need to be killed in order to save the continent from Islam. However, many political terrorists think their victims have it coming. Such a belief is not indicative of sociopathy.

Photo of the killer in the outfit he used to mix explosives at his farm. The process was very long and convoluted, and he spends a great many pages discussing it in depth in his book.

The killers is an anarchist. He is most certainly not. He believes very much in a future fascist-like state. He opposes the current multiculturalist regimes, but that does not make him an anarchist.

The document is rambling, incoherent and consists mostly of cut and paste jobs from other works. None of this is true. It is mostly his own work, and he writes very well. His English is excellent. The document does not ramble but instead follows quite well. It’s very coherent and easy to follow and understand.

The killer was provoked and incited to act by works by such anti-Islamic authors as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Bruce Bawer, Bat Ye’or, Melanie Phillips and Fjordman and Internet sites like the Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs. Although these sites and authors do make many reasonable points about Islam and Muslims, they are fanatical and generally reactionary people. Their opposition to Islam is shrill, over the top and unnecessary.

Their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque was ridiculous. It’s their property, they can build whatever they want to there. Further, that Sufi order that was building the mosque represents the sort of modernism that Islam needs to cultivate.

In addition, all of these people and websites are ferociously Zionist. Zionism is a racist, fascist, ethnic nationalist and settler colonial project. No matter what you think of Muslims, those Jews stole every inch of that land over there. Further, they stole land from a lot of Eastern Christians as well. They are presently engaged in an objectively fascist ethnic nationalist project involving apartheid and ethnic cleansing. On these grounds, Zionism cannot be supported by anyone on the Left of good conscience.

These authors and blogs do amount to purveyors of hate speech I suppose, but I support hate speech. Their attempts to wiggle out of the intellectual authorship of this shooting are pathetic. They definitely laid the groundwork for this attack.

Given the reactionary, shrill, Zionist and fanatical nature of this movement, it’s beyond me why I should support it.

But it brings up an interesting question. Many of these reactionaries are defending the secular, feminist, open, pro-gay and modern nature of the Judeo-Christian West against a ferociously backwards, barbaric, Medieval, imperialistic and reactionary religion called Islam. Why is it up to the Right to defend secularism, atheism, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, gay rights, women’s rights, the right to drink and smoke and modernism itself against barbarism and obscurantism?

Why has the Left, which has always championed civil liberties, freedom of conscience, opposition to fundamentalism, women’s and gay rights, liberal lifestyles, the Sexual Revolution, secularism, atheism and agnosticism, and the very modernist project itself relinquished this task to a bunch of Jewish, Hindu and Christian reactionary kooks, many of whom are backwards and fundamentalist themselves? Why has the Left thrown in its lot with this Medieval religion? I don’t get it.

A photo of the killer looking like a quiet, normal fellow.

The killers has no point or legitimate project. Unfortunately, he does have a point and a legitimate project. Islam frankly has been a total disaster in Western Europe. Importing millions of Muslims, most of whom will never assimilate, into the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Germany has been a complete catastrophe. It’s time to admit that it’s a failure.

A few Muslims are not much of a problem, but over a certain percentage, they are simply not compatible with a modern, Western, secular, culturally Christian state. Projections showing an Islamic Europe in 70 years or so are terrifying. There’s not much to do about it except to stop importing them to Western Europe.

Many nations of the West don’t have a Muslim problem yet. These include the nations of Eastern Europe, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the US and New Zealand. In most cases, the Muslim percentages here are low. The US % is .7%, which is quite manageable. But what happens as that number grows?

Deporting Muslims is not doable, so the countries with Muslim problems above should simply stop importing them and hope their birth rate slows down. The Muslim nations of Albania, Bosnia, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan already have below replacement birth rates. 15% of Muslims in the West are leaving Islam already. If you quit importing them, the problem may well take care of itself.