Med mindre der sker noget uventet der kræver et svar, vil der fremover komme færre historier på Snaphanen om mainstreammediernes skævvredne fremstilling af os der benytter vores demokratiske frihed til at diskutere emner som counterjihad, kulturmarxisme, islamisering og Eurabia. Den sidste uges hektiske aktiviteter har vist at det er en håbløs kamp: Således har ikke ét dansk medie til dato citeret redaktionel tekst på Snaphanen eller nævnt noget om hvor vi selv definerer os politisk. Det er en kamp vi ikke kan vinde, og slet ikke ved at lade medierne have initiativet. Det eneste vi kan gøre er at gøre det vi altid har gjort, og forhåbentlig bedre. Vilje og evne til at læse indenad er ude over vores muligheder for at påvirke.

Vi er også langt ude over det punkt hvor man af ren dekorum er tilbageholdende med at kritisere norske medier. Denne indledning er blevet en kliché på rekordtid, og den er helt på sagesløse menneskers bekostning: “De hater ikke raser. De har ingen hakekors. De går i dress. De synes islam er den største trusselen mot vår sivilisasjon“. I stedet for at besvare dette angreb (endnu en gang) og derved lade propagandamedierne have initiativet, er det mere frugtbart at bidrage med belysning af de forhold i Norge der gør dette land unikt i en europæisk post-Anden Verdenskrig sammenhæng.

In a recent interview, Norway’s ambassador to Israel has suggested that Hamas terrorism against Israel is more justified than the recent terrorist attack against Norway. His reasoning is that “we Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel.” In other words terrorism against Israeli citizens is the fault of Israel. The terrorism against Norway, on the other hand, was based on “an ideology that said that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is foregoing Norwegian culture.” It is hard to imagine that he would make such a provocative statement without express approval from the Norwegian government. […]

I was not surprised to hear such ahistorical bigotry from a Norwegian ambassador. Norway is the most anti-Semitic and anti-Israel country in Europe today. I know, because I experienced both personally during a recent visit and tour of universities. No university would invite me to lecture, unless I promised not to discuss Israel. Norway forbids Jewish ritual slaughter, but not Islamic ritual slaughter. Its political and academic leaders openly make statements that cross the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, such as when Norway’s foreign minister condemned Barak Obama for appointing a Jew as his chief of staff. No other European leader would make such a statement and get away with it. In Norway, this bigoted statement was praised, as were similar statements made by a leading academic. […]

I know of no reasonable person who has tried to justify the terrorist attacks against Norway. Yet there are many Norwegians who not only justify terrorist attacks against Israel, but praise them, support them, help finance them, and legitimate them. […]

The time is long overdue for Norwegians to do some deep soul searching about their sordid history of complicity with all forms of bigotry ranging from the anti-Semitic Nazis to the anti-Semitic Hamas. There seems to be a common thread. Alan M. Dershowitz: Terrorism Against Israel More Justified Than Terrorism Against Norway?

Googler man “rike jøder truer obama” er første hit denne artikel på Aftenposten: Jøder truer med å trekke Obama-støtte. Søgestrengen var såmænd Aftenpostens oprindelige overskrift, som øjensynligt vakte for meget pinlig opmærksomhed. Den lå åbenbart lige til venstrebenet (LFPC). (Tegning: Antisemitisk karikatur i Verdens Gang. Se her og her).

Doktoren i morderens manifest

“But my guess,” Dr. Dalrymple offers, “is that this man, who was extremely ambitious, didn’t have the talent” to realize his ambitions, whether in politics or other fields. “So while he’s intelligent he didn’t have that ability or that determination to mark himself out in a way that might be more—constructive, shall we say.”

Some have sought to link Breivik’s violence to his political thinking. The New York Times ran a story Monday about Breivik’s fondness for certain American anti-Islamist blogs. And a parade of politicians on the European right have felt compelled to step forward and condemn Breivik’s killing spree—as if afraid that silence might somehow imply sympathy. Dr. Dalrymple himself, he says, is quoted indirectly “several times” in Breivik’s manifesto, “and that,” he says, “is slightly anxiety-provoking.” In the first place, it’s never pleasant to find yourself in the company, however unwillingly or unwittingly, of a man like Breivik.

He has another worry, “that what he’s done will be taken as a reason to close down all kinds of debate,” or to delegitimize the views of anyone who, as Dr. Dalrymple puts it, “question[s] anything that the current prime minister of Norway says or believes.”[..]

‘So actually there’s a potentially extremely totalitarian or at least authoritarian aspect to this drive to understand what essentially is not finally understandable.”[,,]

Dr. Dalrymple has a point. And if the deepest thoughts of even our friends and acquaintances would be a horror, we should be grateful that there are gaps in our understanding of an Anders Breivik. Some gaps, we don’t really want to fill.Wall Street Journal: Unraveling the Mystery of Murderous Minds

UK: Muhammed & Mohammed dømt for spraymalede burkaer

Forestillingerne om “den såkaldte islamisering af Europa” får næring af historier om banalt hærværk som denne. En opgave for retssystemet – passér gaden (LFPC).

Two Muslim teenagers have admitted defacing advertising hoardings featuring scantily-clad models and painting a ‘burka’ over them because they offended their religious views.

Mohammed Hasnath and Muhammed Tahir, both 18, used black paint to cover up the picture of a female model on a hoarding advertising Lynx deodorant.

The duo proceeded to paint over the faces on several other advertisements around London’s East End, claiming it was a ‘sin’ for them to be uncovered. […] Muslim teenagers convicted of criminal damage after spraying burkas onto scantily-clad models in Lynx poster

Hvad Bjørn Elmquist kan forstå

Søndagsavisen har ringet rundt til 30 fremtrædende advokater for at høre, om de ville forsvare Breivik. Langt de fleste mener, at alle har krav på et kompetent forsvar, og at de naturligvis ville påtage sig opgaven. Seks af de adspurgte siger dog, at de af forskellige grunde ville afslå. Blandt dem finder vi Bjørn Elmquist, som citeres for følgende perle:

”Der skal være en vis form for forståelse mellem den sigtede og advokaten. Og det tror jeg ikke, at jeg ville have her.”

Det fantastiske er, at Elmquist påtog sig forsvaret af Wissam Freijeh, som en dag tog et våben med ud i Rosengårdscenteret i Odense og gav sig til at fyre løs mod en bod, der var omgivet af tre israelske sælgere og to danske kunder. Ingen blev dræbt, men to af israelerne blev ramt af skuddene. Her var altså tale om med overlæg at forsøge at dræbe mennesker af politiske årsager – hvilket Elmquist mente burde betragtes som en formildende omstændighed. (Elmquist: Straffen er alt for hård.)

Jeg mener i hvert fald, det er forkert, at retten ikke tog hensyn til den konflikt, der er mellem israelere og palæstinensere. I stedet brugte man det mod min klient ved at idømme ham en højere straf, sagde Bjørn Elmquist, der havde forberedt Freijeh på, at det kunne gå den vej.

Også i den temmelig alvorlige terrorsag fra Vollsmose har Bjørn Elmquist følt, at han kunne opvise ’en vis form for forståelse’. Gad vide, hvad forskellen mellem disse anklagede og Breivik i hans øjne er?
Af Nemo

Victory is in sight

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi

We moved from the first stage to the second in the last year or so, and from the second stage to the third in the last week.

We have no money. We have no powerful friends. We have no media connections. We have no resources.

All we have is the truth. And that means that victory is assured. Robert Spencer: Victory is in sight