Please support The British Resistance and help keep this site running.
Use the Donate Button below to send your donation using either Paypal or Cards shown.
Or Subscribe to make regular payments via PayPal ONLY.
The BBC have finally been forced to admit that the clenched fist salute, which Norwegian mass murdered Anders Behring Breivik has been making at the beginning of each day of his trial, is not “a far right salute” as the media have so far been insisting, but is in fact one which is more usually favoured by left wing extremists. A gesture, at its most iconic when made by Nelson and Winnie Mandela in front of the world media on the day Nelson was released from prison in 1990, or by black athletes as a sign of “black power” at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.
I can only imagine the BBC have been shamed into making this admission by those who have pointed out how misleading earlier reports about the salute had been.
A particularly shameful example of the previous day's attempts to mislead the public was that of Channel Four News's superannuated anchorman Jon Snow, who has been around long enough and supported enough dodgy left wing causes to know full well that Breivik's gesture was not the “salute to the far right” which he chose to describe it as in Monday night.
It was left to another Jon, this time Jon Kelly of the BBC, to come clean about the nature and history of the clenched fist salute, its heavily socialist origins and its symbolism within those causes which the left have championed over the years.
Of course, in his article the obedient Mr Kelly attempts to distance his treasured causes from the acts of Anders Breivik by saying that the clenched fist salute “has a long history as a symbol of defiance and solidarity, commonly associated with both left-wing politics as well as the struggles of oppressed groups - most of them far removed from the politics expressed by Breivik”
Au contraire Mr. Kelly, au contraire, in fact the politics of Anders Breivik bear very strong parallels with the struggles of oppressed groups whom the left have, selectively, championed. However, the left wing media refuse to acknowledge that, just as they have always refused to acknowledge the “wrong victims” such as the Kulaks in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, the Khmer Rouge's victims in the 1970 or the Coptic Christians and Afrikaner farmers of today. They will not acknowledge it because, once again the left is on the side of the oppressors, and Anders Behring Breivik belongs to a group they, the left, wish to see oppressed.
There is actually nothing very unique about Breivik's crime, it is only within the attitude of the left that that we see a contrast.
History is full of such events. On the 22 July 1946 (65 years to the exact day before Breivik committed his act of terrorism) the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was bombed, killing 91 people and injuring another 46, this was an act of terror by the Zionist group Irgun against the British forces which were then in charge of Palestine, and it was one of the main factors which led to the setting up of the state of Israel two years later. The leader of Irgun at the time, and primarily involved in planning the atrocity was Menachem Begin, who went on to become the sixth Prime Minister of Israel, and in 1979 he received the Nobel peace prize.
On the 26th of March 1953, in what was then Colonial Kenya a group of Mau Mau terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on your perspective) attacked the peaceful village of Lari in the Kenyan uplands and hacked to death pro-British Chief Luka and 97 Kikuyu loyalists, mostly women and children.
Although the Mau Mau were technically defeated, the bloodshed in Kenya was one of the main factors leading to the end of the British Empire and Kenyan independance. Mau Mau leader Jomo Kenyatta was made Independent Kenya's first prime minister and the country even changed the pronunciation of its name in his honour. Kenyatta went on to become one of Africa's most internationally celebrated leaders, as is usual with retired African freedom fighters, fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice
Three decades later, the bombing of Church Street in the South African capital of Pretoria took place on the 20th of May 1983, although it only killed 19 people it injured 217, many of whom were left horrifically maimed for life. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission identified two of the heroes of the anti-Apartheid struggle Oliver Tambo and Joe Slovo as being primarily responsible for the bombing, however, in his autobiography “The long walk to Freedom” Nelson Mandela, who although in prison at the time, remained the head of the African National Congress (ANC) freely admits that he knew of the planned bombing in advance and “signed it off”.
The names of Tambo and Slovo are spoken by the left with the reverence they reserve for socialist heros who fought against oppression, whereas retired South African president Mandela is one of the most celebrated figures on the planet, a globally acknowledged saint, god like media icon, and another Nobel Peace Trinket recipient. Whilst, modest by the standard of retired African leaders, Mandela struggles by on a conservatively estimated net worth of $15 million.
Many will recoil at these comparisons, especially to the beatified Mandela.
However, cold blooded mass murder is still cold blooded mass murder whatever the politics behind. The left may have fallen out of love with Israel, but likes of Mandela, the Mau Mau, Castro and Che Guevara, all of them mass serial killers, are praised and celebrated by the left because they are viewed as fighting for “their people” against regimes which were, in the view of the left, oppressing “their people”.
That, of course, is exactly how Breivik views his own actions, in fact Breivik goes further, he does not only consider the Norwegian government to be oppressing his people, he believes the government is actively engaged in a deliberate act of genocide against his people.
Had Breivik committed his crime on another continent, or had his skin been a different shade, can anyone doubt that the left would already be excusing his actions and some already calling him a hero.
As it happens, I share Breivik's assessment of the Norwegian government, although, I do not believe they are the worst, the Swedish, French, American, and I am afraid, British governments are all far further down the road to disinheriting and eradicating their own people than are the Norwegians. However, Breivik is a Norwegian, and he is right to care first about Norway, he is also right when he claims that most western governments are guilty of acts of genocide against their own people, and he has correctly identified multiculturalism as the vehicle of that genocide.
Where he is terribly, terribly wrong however is in believing cold blooded premeditated murder, particularly of children, is the solution or is an act that can ever be justified. Only in the minds of the left wing can a massacre such as he committed ever be forgiven.
In the same way that I entirely condemn the bombing of the King David Hotel, the bloody slaughter of Lari village, and the evil carnage of Church Street Pretoria, I also, with equal vigour, condemn and reject the monstrous acts committed by Anders Behring Breivik on 22 July 2011.
The left however, is far less unequivocal in its condemnation of mass murder. They rightly condemn Breivik for his blood stained and vile act. Yet they cherish and praise equally bloody and vile acts when they are committed against their enemies and by their friends. Their hypocrisy and their dishonesty would be stunning had we not become so accustomed to it.
In his clenched fist salute the Norwegian monster embraced the gesture of the left, in the same way that in his ghastly act he embraced the methods of the left. In his terrible crime he chose a solution and a means which has been historically celebrated by the left.
Anders Behring Breivik may have seen what we see, he may have cried for his homeland as we cry and he may have identified the same cause and the same guilty men as we have. Yet when he embarked on his evil work he became their creature, a creature of the left. The left may not want him, but when he chose their path he became one of theirs, he is not one of ours.