Violence results once the deviant personality and a radical idea become united.

Like halved ripe melons on a roadside stand, the titillating topic of the Oslo Massacre is attracting swarms of flies. For quite some time, the swirling crowd of commentators will keep busy by the emissions and the opportunities to spin good tales. In spite of the genuinely felt revulsion and the political exploitation of the matter, numerous central issues remain obscured.

There is no doubt that Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass-murderer, is a savagely dehumanized, socially disconnected, and incorrigibly evil person. Breivik is also, however, the product of a civilization that is itself dehumanized, whose implacable program of subordinating every aspect of society to a tendentious politics hinders the making of authentic, non-politically mediated personal connections. If Breivik were the monster of the Utøya enormity, Norway’s anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-historical, feminist, Marxist, Muslim-loving elites – along with the purveyors of a debased popular culture that is now, regrettably, global – would be, collectively, the monster maker.

Last Sunday evening the leaders of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress reached an agreement with President Obama to raise the debt ceiling. Almost exactly as I predicted in my previous letter. The deal has two sides.

On the one hand: Obama gets permission to make 2,400 billion dollar more debt. This is just enough for him to reach the end of his first term without the need to beg for still more money. During the negotiations it became clear Obama had only one bottom-line: the raise had to be high enough.

On the other hand: the Republicans succeeded for the first time to cut the federal expenditures without raising taxes. Obama bowed twice. Really? When Obama first spend 1600 billion to take 100 back later, who wins? Obama or the taxpayer?

A very revealing report has been published by the European Commission. In it we see the wide divide between the powers that be, the hangers-on and the public citizen. It is an interim report into the latest plans to dehumanise the smoker, or otherwise known as Report on the public consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC).

The question is: shall we make the laws against smoking in public more onerous, shall we create more restrictions on tobacco products, shall we make health warnings bigger, shall we point out that smokers eat babies and are often seen strangling fluffy kittens etcetera. Here is a small collection of the responses. 

On Tuesday, I read a New York Times online report about a press conference held by Geir Lippestad, the defense lawyer for admitted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. I found one of Lippestad's statements of interest, and saved it for future reference. Little did I know it would disappear from the news website.

Condemning the USA is a symptom of subconsciously felt impotence.

Late for America’s birthday but still in time to consider. While perusing the international media one is forced to face the fact that the USA has a “bad press”. Defamatory talk regarding America is an accepted standard and its allegations are regarded as self-evident in certain circles. Doing the same would provoke censure if used to characterize a third world state. This has been the case for decades. The attitude thrives thanks to the cooperation of the Left and the extreme Right. It is therefore an oddity that most Americans whose weakness is to like to be liked, are surprised when they occasionally confront the facts they like to suppress. 

On contents, the so-called multiculturalists have lost the Islam debate. They have never been able to make a dent in the case against Mohammed and his religion presented by Islam scholars and ex-Muslims. In the courts, they lost it again with Geert Wilders’ recent acquittal on charges of sowing hate against Muslims. In politics, they have had to suffer the rejection of so-called multiculturalism with its Islam-favouring policies by leading public figures including the Prime Ministers of Germany, Belgium, France and Great Britain, and the adoption of more realistic integration policies by various European countries. So, what to do?

Multiculturalism has nothing to do with diversity and plurality, but rather with imposed unity replacing common values. It is only a temporary phase, leading to the next milestone: giving groups immunity from the common law and making them dependent on community-specific laws. At best, multiculturalism is a form of cohabitation which growingly becomes more agressive, leading to a State in the State, contrary to what a Republic should be.  

This criticism has nothing to do with racism nor with xenophobia, because it does not imply a rejection of foreigners.  The only aim is to prevent that the foreigner behaves as the new owner instead of as a guest. Is it still allowed to think this way, or is it too late?  

The brutal murder of dozens of innocent Norwegian civilians several days ago has shocked the Freedom Party (Dutch PVV). We mourn and stand by the Norwegian people who suffer from a massive blow.

The manifesto of the perpetrator makes clear that this is a madman. He wants to work with Al Qaeda (which he cherishes great admiration for), craves the bombing of cities, dreams of knights that surgically mutilate themselves, and wants to meet his hero Karadzic.

A Google search shows over 5,000 references to The Brussels Journal and the Norway killer, Anders Breivik. Two of the most notable sources are the UK Guardian, and the German Spiegel Online. From these and others we find that Breivik's own writing contained references to material sourced from The Brussels Journal and another blog, The Gates of Vienna. From both venues the anonymous writer Fjordman is cited. The implication is that The Brussels Journal's political writings are in some way responsible for creating an intellectual ground leading to the murder of innocents.