Remember Huxley's Brave New World and the unsuccessful experiment with alpha-males on an island. The drivel for nietschian creatures is still well alive in the 21st century.

It is very hard to preserve a peaceful image once you have let Fjordman publish "Can we coexists with the left?" on your blog. Do you all agree with his article?

We return to the conclusion paragraph of his article. As we see different interpretations from a quick read-through it might be good to see what he actually says.

"In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.

There are two different interpretations of this text. One is that he places himself as a hypothetical person holding conservative values, and analyses the current situation from that perspective, and derives that a hypothetical person holding conservative values HAVE to resist and as a consequence "this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly". 

But isn't this hypothetical person himself? He sets up the premises under which you have to make resistance, and shows that they are fulfilled for the hypothetical conservative person. But all these premises are fulfilled for himself as well:

1. He believes in the western world

2. He thinks that the left will destroy western civilization as we know it

3. Given the rest of the article, he thinks the left is poisoning him.

He sets up premises for when violence will become necessary. He fulfills these premises. If he believes his own logic he thinks violence is necessary.

That's not a 'dicussion,' that's a dialectic process you witnessed.

And you have as much chance as getting a cogent reply from that der.alte.schwed as from this one.

Truth be told I don't really believe Breivik was part of a left-wing or anti-conservative conspiracy.  I follow Occam's Razor.  As any security expert will tell you, the "lone wolf" is more difficult to guard against than any other threat.  People belive in conspiracies because they give order to a chaotic and seemingly random world, even if evil always appears to be in charge.  But just like Loughner's ramblings about the Obama administration caused his actions to be blamed on Sarah Palin and/or the Tea Party, so too will Breivik's lunacy be used as a cudgel to stifle debate in Europe even further.  Contrary to the belief of a number of people, Breivik has only set back the efforts of Fjordman, Bat Ye'or, et al...

Here, we see the Progs mobilize in a rage of denial; see no evil.

On the long march to Utopia, the Left rejects the world for what it is -- wants no part of it.  "Terrence, this is stupid stuff..."

Perservere, TBJ.

Perhaps Kapitein Andre could volunteer for a stint with the Norwegian police, at least someone would be equipped to defend defenseless children in Norway.

"No Brussels Journal author has called for, much less expressed a hope or longing for political violence."

Compare the following text by Fjordman published in BJ in 2010n under the title  Can We Coexist With The Left?

"In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War."

Fjordmans clearly answers NO to the question "Can We Coexist With The Left?"  and then he points to leftist and globalist such as the children on Utöy as a deadly threat, That is a call for violence that Breivik clearly understood.  

"No Brussels Journal author has called for, much less expressed a hope or longing for political violence."

Please have a look at Kapitein Andre's photo at your site: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/user/5323

If Andre is not longing for violence, why is he pointing a gun to the reader?

I am not prone to conspirational paranoia.  However, I followed the events in Oslo and Utoeya in real-time from when the bomb exploded.  My first instinct when I learned that 2 people had been reported dead and 7 injured (therefore early on in the massacre), was that the culprit would turn out to be an ethnic Norwegian and a "far-right extremist".  I shuddered at the thought because I could see the center-left and left using that as an opportunity to regroup, given the expansion of conservatism across northwestern Europe. 

Breivik was a lone wolf out for himself, not unlike Jared Loughner.  Any ideological struggle will do.  Revolutionary socialism helped the egos and demons of Carlos the Jackal, Che Guevara, the Red Army Faction, etc. 

The difference is that intellectual conservatives don't identify with or apologize for mass-murderers who act in the name of a supposed common cause. 

Back to the false flag question: isn't is possible?  "Operation Northwoods" was real.  With the integrity of the EU in peril, and a combination of grassroots free-market and anti-immigration/multiculturalism movements threatening to topple one left-wing government after the next, a lot of stakeholders stand to lose a lot. 

I don't think it's an offensive question to ask, especially when people only claim that 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA and/or the Mossad.

The liberal establishment is nothing if it is not crassly opportunistic.  It should come as no surprise that spokesmen for that establishment should exploit the bloody opportunity wrought by the Norwegian mass murderer to denounce and smear people and institutions that they have been denouncing and smearing all along.  Nothing I have ever read at The Brussels Journal could, in any way, be construed as a call for violence against anyone.  Indeed, there is probably a consensus among contributors to the Journal that the USA’s military presence in the Muslim world is no longer useful, even if it were justified in the beginning, and that the US armed forces should withdraw from those places and stop killing Muslims; I imagine that contributors to the Journal are also troubled over NATO’s assault on Libya and its legal, sitting regime.  In my recent article about Nicolas Berdyaev, I praised Berdyaev for his abhorrence of violence.  Conservatism is not about violence; it is about argument and persuasion.  The actions of madmen who randomly quote us in insane discourses have nothing to do with our vision of civic order.

Patalong is the chief/webmaster of Spiegel-on-line since 1999.

It's normal that such an establishments tool supporter tries to demolish Fjordman, TBJ and Gates of Vienna, the author and the sites are much too uncomfortable for the establishment, certainly for the undemocratic and wounded European establishment.

I guess we have to show them that we cannot be intimidated by their lies.

Cheers to all independant thinkers, I feel refreshed.