Who are the Real Culprits of the Oslo Massacre?

By Con George-Kotzabasis


Enoch Powell’s prophesy in his “Rivers of Blood” speech delivered in Birmingham in 1968, was to occur by the “cunning of history,” if not by its ‘revenge’, forty-three years later in the peaceful and highly cultured country of Norway to the shock of all people who had not taken seriously the premonition of that outstanding conservative British politician. Powell had early on seen that the ‘progressive’ immigration policies that were artificially breathed-in on the political landscape of the UK by a hybrid breed of Labor and Conservative governments, would not take long before they changed into dragons teeth that in turn would spawn homicidal ‘armed camps’ between indigenous and migrant populations of Britain. The first phase of Powell’s dire prediction had already happened when the children of immigrants transformed themselves into Islamic homegrown terrorists, and detonated bombs aboard London Underground trains on 7 July 2005, killing and wounding hundreds of people—and the currently burning of Britain by the offspring of migrants is directly correlated to the same inconceivably foolish and ill-advised immigration policies of the past--as well as one year earlier in the Madrid train bombings by Moroccan Islamic homegrown terrorists. And as we all witnessed, the second phase, the indigenous reaction to those fatal immigration policies, occurred in the cultured polished country of Henrik Ibsen by the murderous action of a ‘Viking Warrior’, Anders Behring Breivik, who took it in his hands, as his long Manifesto makes clear, to close the doors to Muslim immigration in Norway, and to prevent the future domination of Europe by Muslims. These actions were not the actions of a madman, but the actions fed and bred by a mad immigration policy that was implemented over a number of years by so called humanitarian and caring social democratic governments toward Third World countries in Scandinavia, Norway being the first victim of that policy that was to be put in the government made straitjacket.


For inevitably, that bizarrely naïve immigration policies adopted by a number of economically developed European countries, and ‘escorted’ by that beautiful debutante of multiculturalism, would divide the countries politically and severely between left and right, as it is being illustrated presently and pellucidly in many parts of Europe. With such political and cultural polarization in Europe and within the context of the external and internal mortal threat that Islamic barbaric fanaticism poses to Western civilization, as well as the economic crisis of the Euro zone, not to expect that fringes of the extreme right would not be prone to commit atrocities, could only be assumed by those who like ostriches have their heads buried in the sand. The Breivik killings could only shock the historically ignorant and the incorrigibly naïve. And, indeed, it may turn out to be a dress rehearsal for other European countries that are likewise divided on the issue of immigration and multiculturalism and the internal threat of Islamization. The former PM Tony Blair in an interview he gave in his last visit to Australia sees the Oslo atrocities as an extreme reaction to the “Islamization of Europe.” (M.E.) The liberal internationalists who dub those who believe that this threat is real as “Islamophobes,” are fugitives from reality and are totally incapable of composing a narrative of reason on the issue. Were those like Winston Churchill, after the Anschluss of Austria by the Nazis in 1938, who were convinced that the latter posed a real threat to Europe and to the peace of the world, ‘Naziphobes’? And can one likewise disregard the profound cogitations of great thinkers, like the Islamist scholar Bernard Lewis, who forewarns that Europe by the end of the century by the dint of demographics, will be Islamized?


Here lies the cause of the Oslo massacre. And European governments who are becoming conscious and aware that these ill-conceived immigration policies of the past and present are rallying their own people to take direct action against these policies and against congenitally unassimilated Muslims who are lazily teeming the cities of Europe as a result of these doltish policies, must bring the latter to an end. Moreover, many Muslims willingly become ‘secularly’ unemployed-to use the term in its economic meaning-and of the underclass, since their preference is to be welfare dependent. And the safety net of welfare, especially the one that applies to families, is a honeyed incentive for Muslims to have big families, which is in accord with their religion, as the more children they have the bigger the payments of welfare. Hence, ‘working’ and sweating in the conjugal bed is a pleasurable source of ‘windfall’ income.


We see therefore, that the demographic change of Europe, of which a sizeable part of its population is Muslim, is fostered not only by religious factors, i.e., Muslim polygamy, but also by economic factors. i.e. the exploitation and milking of the welfare system by the true believers of Mohammed. This unholy wedlock of religion with economic sleaze provocatively raises the ire of the majority of the indigenous population who as tax payers are footing the bill, and who are terrified that future generations of Europeans would be living under Sharia laws. It’s these factors that agitate Europeans and induce them to support political parties that are committed to put a stop to Muslim immigration, to enact radical reforms to the welfare system that presently is a big tit that feeds Muslim procreation, and to engender the conditions for Muslim integration to European mores by ceasing to subsidize Muslim schools and Mosques. It’s only by hardening the political and social landscape of Europe for Muslims that governments can prevent their citizens from taking extreme measures to reverse the past deeply flawed immigration policies that are responsible for such extreme and atrocious actions as perpetrated in this case by Anders Behring Breivik.

I rest on my oars: your turn now…

How U.S. Missed Opportunity to Defeat Insurgency in Iraq in its Early Stage

By Con George-Kotzabasis 

 The following was written on August 23, 2003 and is an extract from my book, Unveiling The War Against Terror, published in Melbourne on May 9, 2004. under the title How to Legitimize the Interim Government in Iraq and How to Trap Terrorists. It's republished here for the purpose of higlighting the serious errors committed by the Bush administration in the initial stages of the occupation of Iraq. But despite these errors I was unshakable in my belief that the U.S. would defeat the insurgents as presently is happening under the generalship of Petraeus.

As events have shown, the Americans implemented at the beginning of 2004 two of the proposals below--though not quick enough and not in the form I suggested in regards to the second, i.e., the formation of an elite National Guard--(a) the establishment of the Interim Government and (b) the arming of Iraqis. But to my surprise and chagrin, they did not implement the core of my plan, i.e., to make Iraqis the owners of oil (They did this too late, under Article 108 of the Constitution of Iraq, voted by Iraqis in 2005, "Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all regions", without however making them direct equity holders and paying them dividends in advance, as I had suggested), that in my opinion if they had done so (a) would have prevented the insurgency and (b) would have captured or killed the foreign jihadists.


Paradoxically, it could be Iraq, allied with the American Coalition Forces, that would be instrumental to the defeat of global Islamist terror. By the capture or killing of a substantial number of Jihadists who, at the end of the major combat operations against Saddam Hussein, were able to infiltrate into Iraq, with the aim to fight and destroy the American infidel occupier, with the help of local remnants of Saddam's supporters and Islamist fundamentalists. It's for this reason of the utmost importance, that the Coalition Forces do not prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Iraq, from neighbor muslim countries, as the distinguished war historian John Keegan suggests in one of his recent articles, but, on the contrary, facilitate their entry into the country and trap them.

The set up of this trap will be accomplished by two imaginative strategic moves, as will be explained below, with which the American led-coalition in alliance with the future Interim Government of Iraq and its military forces, would achieve its three major political and military objectives. First, the formation of a legitimate democratic government in Iraq. Secondly, the substantial defeat of global terrorism. And thirdly, the quick withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq. Hence, the Bush administration at one fell swoop would succeed in keeping the promises it made to the American people and to the world at large, about the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq, and about the war against global terror.

The two-pronged stratagem will involve the following: The first one will entail the hastening of the formation of an Interim Government ( IG ) in Iraq by its present Governing Council. At its formation, the IG will make the following historical announcement to the Iraqi people. That the latter will be equity holders in the major wealth of the country, i.e., its oil production. Each Iraqi household will be a recipient of an annual dividend from the profits of oil. That this is not a promise for the future but a real offer, will be exemplified by the immediate payment of the dividend to each Iraqi household, whose amount will be assessed from the flow of oil profits issuing from future sales. This advanced payment will be funded either by a newly-established financial institution of the UN, or of the IMF or the World Bank.

The equity of the Iraqi people in the major resource of the country will effectively demonstrate the bona fides of the IG to Iraqis, and will immediately confer unassailable legitimacy to it. It will blot out all internal initial opposition to the IG as being a quisling governing body of the Americans, as well as take the wind off the sails of all the jaded "unembedded" commentators, who claim that the US invaded Iraq for its oil. In the same announcement, the IG will inform the Iraqi people of the formation of an elite National Guard, whose objective, among others, will be the safeguarding and protection of this national property of the people from any incendiary acts of sabotage against its producing facilities perpetrated by either external or internal enemies of Iraq.

The Americans will have nothing to fear from the formation of the National Guard. As the latter will be mainly enlisted from former members of the Republican Guard, who were nurtured on secular principles, and whose loyalty to Saddam arose only from the fact of their elite status given to them by the latter. Moreover, the members of this elite overwhelmingly have enormous respect of American military power, and of the personnel manning that power. Therefore, as an elite corps, they will be proud to serve as equals with their American counterparts, in defense of Iraq's national interests.

The second prong of the stratagem will be a proclamation made by the IG to the Iraqi people (And this act will sound the clap of the trap that will catch the Jihadist terrorists en masse.) The proclamation will be made in the following terms: That any one who harbors, aids, and supports Iraqi and foreign guerrillas will be considered to be an enemy of the State and of the Iraqi people. And will be dealt with the ultimate punishment, as that to be meted out to the terrorist guerrillas. At the same time, the IG will issue an order, not only to the National Guard and the adjunct security forces of the country, but, also, to its Coalition allies in Iraq, to commence a relentless punitive campaign against the guerrillas and those who harbor and support them, and pluck them out of the soil of Iraq, root and branch. This order of the IG will bestow legality to the actions of the American led-coalition already taken against urban guerrillas, as they will be seen by Iraqis to have the imprimatur of their Government. Furthermore, that the American Command Centre and its ground forces will be abiding to, and executing, this order of the Iraqi Government, will have a tremendous psychological impact upon the Iraqi people. Because of the primary status that pride has in Arab culture, this will be a proud moment for all Iraqis.

This order of the IG, will accomplish two strategic tasks. First, it will make a strong impression on the Iraqi people, that the American led-coalition are not an occupier of their country, but a defender of their interests. Secondly, and more importantly, the fear that will instil on people in Iraq who aid and support guerrillas ( this time fear will be on the side of a good cause, unlike Saddam's fear ), that they will be treated as traitors and hence punished accordingly, will induce them to stop sheltering the guerrillas and abandon them. Once the terrorists are abandoned, by their current and would-be supporters, they will be consigned to the "furies" of their fate. As they will be forced to operate "in no man's land" , where they would be easily captured or killed by the National Guard and the Coalition forces.

This trap sprang on the Jihadist terrorists will be a devastating blow on global terrorism. It will demoralize active and would-be terrorists on such an immence scale with the outcome of drying up the well from which fundmentalist mullahs get their deadly recruits. And providing these mullahs are severely dealt with by the Coalition against global terror, wherever they happen to be, in the East or in the West, the black veil of death will enshroud the heads of terror. The Bush administration's total war against global terror, not only will be justified, but it will also be a glorious total victory against it, morally, politically, and historically.

The above is an extract from my book Unveiling The War Against Terror written on August 23, 2003. My proposal was sent to the White House on the same date.

Will Greece Default and Leave the Eurozone?

By Con George-Kotzabasis

In any crisis of serious proportions consensus between the major political parties is the sine qua non for its resolution. This certainly applies presently in Greece. But the dimensions of the crisis are so Gulliverian that only a titanic struggle of will and resolution by its politicians, guided by wisdom, will at least diminish the scale of the crisis. Regrettably, however, there is a dearth of politicians in Greece of the status of Gulliver and an abundance of Lilliputians. Therefore, a different consensus is materializing among eminent economists, that Greece perforce will have to traverse a different course than that imposed by the ECB and IMF.

Deepak Lal, a former president of the Mont Pelerine Society and a prominent exponent of the Austrian school of economics, predicts a Greek default and an exit from the Euro. To avoid a Greek debt default that would lead to a Eurozone banking crisis, a stabilization program has been imposed on Greece by the ECB and IMF. But unlike other similar stabilization programs, Lal argues, two vital elements are missing: a large devaluation and a restructuring of the country’s debt. “The former is precluded by the fixed exchange rate of the Euro, the latter by the external holdings of Greek sovereign debt by European banks.” The alternative program therefore is to impose a large internal devaluation instigating a precipitous fall in domestic wages and prices through a massive deflation. It is impossible however to believe that Greek politics will allow the country to follow such a course, especially when Greece is likely to be left with a debt-GDP ratio of 150%. Hence, Deepak Lal predicts that a Greek default and an exit from the Euro is the most likely path that Greece will follow.