SPLC Labels the Right all inclusively as Haters


Ergo Agenda 21 Portrait Flawed

splc-propaganda - Mark Potok foto

John R. Houk

© July 5, 2014

 

Have you heard of United Nations Agenda 21 (usually written as Agenda 21)?

 

Anti-Agenda 21 Conservatives/Conspiracy Theorists look at the original documents that led to the formulation of Agenda 21. The documentation smacks of a New World Order mentality enveloped in Enviro-Marxism and disguised with positive sounding words designed to gain public support in voluntarily implementing the guidelines of Agenda 21. Yup, I am biased against Agenda 21.

 

Pro-Agenda 21 Liberals/Leftists/Progressives defend the agenda by first of all trying to smear the character of Anti-Agenda 21 activists as Right Wing Nut jobs that see an absurd unmerited conspiracy under every rock that are allegedly designed to benefit the collective society of humankind. Then the Pro-Agenda 21 typically justify the agenda with the same flowery word descriptors designed to make individuals amenable to changes that allegedly will better the quality of living of humanity collectively.

 

A good example of what I am writing about can be found in the once great but now Left Wing organization known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):

 

At the conclusion of the June 3-14, 1992, United Nations Conference on Environment & Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, President George H.W. Bush and the leaders of 177 other nations signed a document known as Agenda 21. At the time, it was seen as a perfectly sensible planning paper, a nonbinding statement of intent aimed at dealing with sustainability on an increasingly crowded planet.

 

But in the 22 years since that day, at the hands of groups like the John Birch Society, Agenda 21 has been transformed in much of the American public mind into a secret plot to impose a totalitarian world government, a nefarious effort to crush freedom in the name of environmentalism. And it isn’t only extremists pushing this conspiracy theory — in January 2012, the Republican National Committee bought into the propaganda, denouncing Agenda 21 in a resolution as a “destructive and insidious scheme” that is meant to impose a “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.”

 

 

To listen to such groups, Agenda 21 will lead to a “new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.” It is “a comprehensive plan of utopian environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control,” the “most dangerous threat to America’s sovereignty” yet. It will “make our nation a vassal” of the UN, result in “the destruction of our lives,” force rural areas’ “population [to be] decimated,” and lead to having “90% of the population murdered.” The end, these critics all agree, will be the imposition of “a collectivist world government.”

 

Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It has no force of law, no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties, and no significant funding. It is not even a top-down recommendation, seeking instead to encourage communities around the world to come up with their own solutions to overpopulation, pollution, poverty and resource depletion. It is a feel-good guide that cannot force anyone, anywhere, to do anything at all.

 

 

The fears generated in such places are ridiculous to the point of utter absurdity, but they have had an important real-world impact. …

 

Virtually none of the outlandish claims about Agenda 21 are true. Yet, as with all such baseless pro-Propaganda, the hysteria over it has had the effect of poisoning any kind of rational discussion of the very real challenges we face — challenges that are essential to tackle head-on in an increasingly complex and stressed world.

 

It’s time to finally call out the conspiracy theorists. The politicians who spread falsehoods about Agenda 21 and its effects need to be shamed by other politicians, by editorial boards and other commentators, and by the citizenry at large. … (AGENDA 21: The UN, Sustainability and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory; By staff of Intelligence Project of the SPLC – www.splcenter.org; April 2014; © Southern Poverty Law Center. All rights reserved.)

 

The rest of the document is more a smear campaign against the proponents of anti-Agenda 21 activists (aka the Right-Wing Conspiracy) than a refutation of anti-Agenda accusations; i.e. other than the typical justification of the typical amenable nice sounding descriptor words. The primary targets of the SPLC are Tom DeWeese, Senator Ted Cruz and Glen Beck.

 

This from the executive summary of the SPLC document. In the “About the Report” heading more specific information is given as to who the “staff” is led by in formulating the SPLC document:

 

This report was principally researched and written by Heidi Beirich, with contributions by Mark Potok, Janet Smith and Don Terry, who wrote about the plan in Baldwin County, Ala. It was edited by Potok. Russell Estes and Sunny Paulk designed the report.

 

The SPLC in my opinion was once a bastion of civil rights in America, especially during the formative years of the civil rights movement that has led to greater socio-political equality among non-White Anglo-American Protestants. Arguably there still is some racial tension, yet racism is more the acceptance than the rule in American society. In the 21st century the SPLC has joined America’s Fringe Left that has successfully transformed America AWAY from Christian moral principles that this great nation was formed upon. This explains the SPLC’s stance of promoting anti-American denigration of Free Speech, Religious Freedom and Constitutional issues loved by Conservatives in the Bill of Rights and loathed by America’s Left who choose to nullify or transform the Bill of Rights into a moldable Living Constitution that can be adjusted as needed by Leftist utopian principles.

 

This is the same SPLC that encourages Leftists to silence Conservatives by shouting misleading lies ending with making ALL Conservatives into Right Wing Nutjobs on the same level as the fringe Right (e.g. the KKK, Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, Aryans, White Supremacist organization and you get the idea). This means Family Rights groups promoting Biblical Christian morality, Biblical Christian Churches, Traditional Roman Catholics, Conservative organizations promoting Original Intent Constitutional issues especially the Tea Party movement and so on; are on the same level as actual Right Wing racists.

 

And thus the SPLC vilifies Conservatives that view the Agenda 21 path as a threat to the U.S. Constitution as Right Wing Conspiracy Theorists.

 

Since the SPLC engages in unwarranted character assassination to justify their labels Conservatives, let’s look at the nature of the SPLC’s actual character:

 

An academic study has accused the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of having an anti-Christian bias in its reporting on hate groups in America.

 

Once considered the “gold standard” in reporting on violent anti-government or racist groups in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s reputation has begun to wither as it has started targeting conservative Christian groups including the Family Research Council (FRC) for what SPLC claims is anti-gay animus.

 

SPLC says FRC gins up hatred and possible violence against gays because it has reported certain ideas that are taboo to SPLC: that hate-crimes laws will be used to stifle preachers; that because of HIV-AIDS and other diseases gays may not live as long as others; that gay parenting is not as good for children as more traditional parenting; that same-sex attraction is not inborn; and that gays can stop being homosexual. Believing or espousing any of these ideas makes you eligible for the SPLC hate list. [Full disclosure: the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, of which I am president, was just placed on SPLC’s hate list for espousing some of these ideas.]

 

Professor George Yancey of the University of North Texas says he is not arguing one way or the other about FRC’s inclusion on the list but merely demonstrating SPLC’s outrage is subjective, selective, and never reckons progressive groups guilty of the same things of which READ THE REST(STUDY: SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER IGNORES LIBERAL HATE; By AUSTIN RUSE; Breitbart – Big Government; 3/10/14)

 

Christian groups are celebrating with the news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have scrubbed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from its hate crimes webpage, where the controversial group was listed as a resource and referred to as a partner in public outreach.

 

A letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, drafted by Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. Boykin, Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council (FRC), calls such an association “completely unacceptable.”

 

Signed by fourteen other conservative and Christian leaders, the letter calls SPLC “a heavily politicized organization producing inaccurate and biased data on ‘hate groups’ – not hate crimes.” It accuses the SPLC of “providing findings that are not consistent with trends found in the FBI statistics.” Where the FBI has found hate crimes and hate groups declining significantly in the past ten years, SPLC claims hate groups have increased READ THE REST (FBI DUMPS SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER AS HATE CRIMES RESOURCE; By Austin Ruse; sreaves32 blog – Originally Breitbart; 3/28/14)

 

When I checked out Heidi Beirich via Google I have to admit in full disclosure a slew of websites and blogs with a White Supremacist and Antisemitic bent came up prior to anything critical of her journalism. I say GO Heidi in exposing those nefarious organizations; nonetheless she too also groups non-hate groups particularly Christians and Counterjihad writers as hate groups while failing to report on Left Wing terrorism and Radical Islamic American individuals-groups as well Islamic terrorist organizations.

 

Apparently Heidi Beirich was the primary writer of the collated data of the staff of the publication Intelligence Project under the auspices of the SPLC. Beirich as a SPLC writer seems to be the interviewer/interrogator for the Intelligence Project. She has no disguise in her press questions of interviewees.

 

Heidi Beirich

 

VIDEO CLIP:  http://www.mrctv.org/videos/cnn-hypes-exploding-number-extremist-anti-govt-groups

 

 

CNN let the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center brand many right-wing “patriot” groups as “extremist” and racist on Friday afternoon. CNN host Brooke Baldwin simply listened to the SPLC talking points and concernedly asked what was being done to “combat” the “paranoia” of “anti-government activism.”

The SPLC had previously placed the Family Research Council alongside Klan members and neo-Nazis in a list of “hate” groups, but CNN did not question their study then. They continued to accept their liberal “expertise” on Friday, not challenging whether certain groups belonged in the “extremist” category.

 

Baldwin reported the “exploding” number of “patriot” groups – as labeled by the SPLC – and did not ask how the SPLC determined what constituted an “patriot” group. Included in the list of “extremist” groups were Constitution Parties and militia groups of multiple states.

The SPLC’s Heidi Beirich insinuated that racism was alive and well in these groups, without being challenged as to whether some of the groups in the list were really racist. “Obama is an African-American. So there are all these crazy racial theories that you hear about Obama, that he’s not really a citizen, that he’s maybe a secret Muslim,” she noted.

“And all of this has created an incredible amount of paranoia on the far, far right – which is expressed in these kinds of – in this kind of anti-government activism,” explained the SPLC’s Heidi Beirich.”

“So what, if anything, is being done to combat some of this paranoia?” Baldwin worriedly asked.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 9 on Newsroom at 3:10 p.m. EST, is as follows:

READ THE REST(CNN Hypes ‘Exploding’ Number of ‘Extremist’ Anti-Gov’t Groups; By Matt Hadro; News Busters; 3/9/12)

Mark Potok is a Senior fellow with the Southern Poverty Law Center and pertaining Conservative DTN states he says, ‘… the Tea Party “and similar groups” are “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism”’.

 

… Potok and SPLC give a free pass to left-wing groups that advocate on behalf of illegal immigrants and open borders, no matter how hateful or race-obsessed those groups’ agendas may be. One such entity is MEChA—a “Chicano Students” organization that calls for the people of Mexico to annex the American Southwest, and vows to repel the “brutal ‘gringo’ invasion of our territories.” Not even MEChA’s slogan—which translates to “For the race, everything; Outside of the race, nothing”—draws the ire of Potok, who says: “[W]e have found no evidence to support charges that [MEChA] is racist or anti-Semitic.”

 

 

According to Laird Wilcox, a researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements: “In private [Potok] concedes that there’s no overwhelming threat from the far right, and in public [he] says something altogether different.” This, says Wilcox, is because “professionally [Potok] is just a shill. It’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for.” In 2010, Wilcox reported that after having reviewed a list of 800-plus “hate groups” published by Potok and SPLC, he had “determined that over half of them were either non-existent, existed in name only, or were inactive.”

 

 

Potok and SPLC routinely conflate racist extremists on the one hand, with respectable conservative scholars, researchers, and journalists on the other. For example, the Intelligence Report‘s “30 New Activists” article featured numerous profiles of Klansmen, skinheads, white nationalists, and neo-Nazis. Co-mingled with these profiles was one devoted to Frank Gaffney, Jr., founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Though Gaffney is a scholar devoted to meticulous research and a lucid, reasoned presentation of verifiable facts, the Intelligence Report derided him as “the anti-Muslim movement’s most paranoid propagandist.”[1]

Just as Potok and SPLC conflate individual hatemongers with respectable conservatives, so do they lump hatemongering groups together with legitimate organizations that happen to hold conservative political views. In late 2007, for instance, SPLC labeled the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)—whose mission is to “improve border security” and “stop illegal immigration”—as a “hate group.” “What we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR,” Potok candidly confirmed at the time. “We don’t think they should be a part of the mainstream media.”

 

SPLC likewise began listing the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group in 2010 because, Potok explained: “it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people … [and has made] demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse—claims that are provably false.”

For additional information on Mark Potok, click here.

 

READ ENTIRETY (MARK POTOK; From Discover The Networks [DTN])

 

Further info on Mark Potok

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/john-perazzo/mark-potok-hatemonger/

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/john-perazzo/mark-potok-hatemonger/2/

 

Janet Smith

 

Smith is a Research Analyst for the Intelligence Report, the Intelligence Project’s quarterly magazine that exposes extremists groups in the U.S. Smith has tracked white nationalist, neo-Confederate, and Holocaust denial groups. Her most recent work has focused on the activities of the anti-immigration, militia/patriot, sovereignty, and tea party movements in the U.S.

 

Co-director of the UNA Women’s Center, Dr. Anna Lott, invited Janet Smith to speak at UNA.

 

“We invited her to tell her story about what she has done, and what is still going on. I don’t think people are aware of it,” said Lott. “I think she is an inspiration.” (Member of the Southern Poverty Law Center to speak at UNA; From University of North Alabama; 10/7/09)

 

Don Terry

 

Don Terry is a senior writer at the Southern Poverty Law Center and has previously worked for the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Times, where he was part of a team of journalists awarded the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for the series “How Race Is Lived in America.” (Brief bio found at bottom page of “Agenda of Fear: The Right-Wing Threat to Urban Planning Everywhere”)

 

Russell Estes

 

Design Director Russell Estes (From Acknowledgements – “Agenda of Fear: The Right-Wing Threat to Urban Planning Everywhere”)

 

Mr. Estes appears to be more a tech guy than a political polemicist (LinkIn Profile).

 

Sunny Paulk – Designer

 

Also a person who seems more techy than political.

 

Of course then in essence the SPLC has become a Left Wing propagandist tool in which the organizations integrity is now questionable.

 

The founder of the SPLC Morris Dees has also crept into the realm of Leftist polemicist but worse. Dees is a Leftist for profit. See this profile by Charlotte Allen writing for the Weekly Standard (but posted at John Tanton).

 

JRH 7/5/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Agenda 21 – In one easy lesson

Earth Summit Agenda 21

 

By Tom DeWeese

The United Nations Agenda 21

 

What is Sustainable Development?

 

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.  Social Equity (Social Justice) Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

Economic Prosperity?

Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.


Local Sustainable Development policies Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.


Who is behind it?

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

 

Where did it originate?

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

 

What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

 

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing G.H.W. Bush on Agenda 21ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

Revealing Quotes From the Planners

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced    ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR

 

Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!

The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.


Agenda 21 and Private Property
:

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…”Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.


Reinvention of Government
:

We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

What is not sustainable?

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people!

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

__________________________

SPLC Labels the Right all inclusively as Haters

Ergo Agenda 21 Portrait Flawed

 

John R. Houk

© July 5, 2014

_______________________

Agenda 21 – In one easy lesson

 

Tom DeWeese the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and is the President of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia.

 

The United Nations Agenda 21

Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia


Wikibias logo

Due to the psycho mass murderer Anders Breivik, Fjordman has been a target of the Mainstream Media (MSM) because Breivik manipulated many of Fjordman’s essays into his manifesto to change Europe’s political order through terrorism. The multiculturalists of Europe have pretty much labeled Fjordman a person that incites hatred. The problem is the MSM picks up on the multiculturalist labeling without checking out Fjordman’s scholarship which is detailed from facts and not fabrication. Norwegian authorities astonishingly have interrogated Fjordman in a hostile manner in relation to the butcher of Utøya Youth Camp as if he some kind of ring leader.

 

According Fjordman he has ignored the multiculturalist critics; however he felt the need to set the record straight as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Below is that article as posted at EuropeNews.

 

JRH 6/23/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia

 

By Fjordman

19 June 2012

EuropeNews

 

I cannot and will not respond to all of the negative writings about me or accusations against me. My time is limited, and may be more usefully spent doing other things. My initial instinct was to ignore the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, too, but on further reflection, it seemed necessary to clarify the record.

 

Tens of millions of people use Wikipedia on a regular basis. They have a right to know just how biased this source can be and sometimes is.

 

Because Wikipedia is continuously edited by numerous unpaid volunteers in many countries, it changes more frequently than, say, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. The following Wikipedia citations all refer to entries as they existed on June 15, 2012. One may hope some of these will later be changed for the better.

 

I will mainly focus on the English and Norwegian language editions in this discussion. The Vietnamese, Kurdish, Esperanto or Azerbaijani versions may also have problems, but I haven’t checked them. And yes, these all exist. By the summer of 2012, Wikipedia had entries on Anders Behring Breivik in about 60 different languages, which probably pleases his grossly inflated ego immensely. He is a nobody who became a somebody through mass murder.

 

The English entry on ABB claims that “In his writings Breivik displays admiration for the English Defence League (EDL)” and “sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement” in the USA, who want lower taxes and less government interference in the lives of individual citizens. As a matter of fact, the EDL are quite marginal in the manifesto, receiving only a handful of very short mentions in more than 1500 pages.

 

The single most extensive quote about the EDL there is actually extremely negative, denouncing them as pathetic and useless non-violent sissies. Yet Breivik’s denouncing the EDL in the mainstream media was transformed into a mantra of “Breivik was just like the EDL, who are a group of potential terrorists.” This is, to say the least, grossly dishonest.

 

Under the subheading “Writing influences,” Wikipedia listed among others the Freedom Party of Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, Winston Churchill, Robert Spencer, Patrick Buchanan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, the Australian historian Keith Windschuttle, Charles Martel, Richard Lionheart and John III Sobieski of Poland.

 

To their credit, the Wikipedia community included a (very brief) reference to that fact that Breivik admired and wanted to copy the brutality and methods of the Islamic Jihadist terror network al-Qaida. It also stated in a single paragraph that Wikipedia was extensively quoted in the manifesto and that Breivik during the trial named the free encyclopedia as his primary source of education, but the entry did not elaborate more upon this.

 

It said much more about Breivik’s alleged ties or sympathies to Zionists, “far Right” Islamophobes, “national conservatives” or even the English journalist Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, the popular BBC television show about cars which currently enjoys hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide. From reading this Wikipedia entry, one might get the impression that Anders Behring Breivik was the collective product of all European and Western forces to the Right of the Social Democrats who don’t kiss the boots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Much has been written about Anders Behring Breivik and his relationship with the Internet. It is true that he was affected by visiting blogs, reading texts or news, seeing videos or playing computer games online. On a darker note, he used it during his terror preparations to buy equipment, weapons and effects for his self-made uniform, and also to send his so-called manifesto by email to hundreds of people. However, the Internet itself is neither good nor bad; just like telephones or books are not. Technical tools may change the manner in which human beings interact, but they ultimately reflect the complexities of human relationships and the human mind itself.

 

The American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia as a free Internet-based encyclopedia operating under an open-source management style, edited collaboratively by volunteers and amateurs in multiple languages. Despite its significant flaws, chief of which is the lack of professionalism, Wikipedia has over the past decade become one of the most popular websites on the entire planet and is sometimes openly credited as a source by the mass media. Jimmy Wales visited Oslo to participate in Wikipedia Academy 2012. He then stated that his creation simply reflects ordinary human beings and their culture, for better or worse.

 

Just to highlight how important the encyclopedia is considered to be, a number of senior representatives of national political and cultural life participated in Wikipedia Academy 2012 alongside Wales and Jarle Vines from Wikimedia Norway. One of them was Heikki Holmås of the Socialist Left Party, the Minister of International Development in the Stoltenberg government. The Arts Council Norway, the main governmental operator for the implementation of Norwegian cultural policy, fully financed by the Ministry of Culture, announced in 2012 that it had set aside money for training purposes to encourage certain state employees to edit entries at Wikipedia.

 

Knut Olav Åmås, debate editor at newspaper Aftenposten, warned in 2010 that the Arts Council, which controls substantial sums of tax payers’ money that is of interest to many people in key positions in the country’s cultural life, exhibits less and less independence from the Ministry. Åmås suggested that this was a desired policy by Minister of Culture Trond Giske and his successor Anniken Huitfeldt, both from the Labor Party.

 

While being more tightly controlled by the left-wing government, the Council has increased significantly in staff and budget. Its current director Anne Aasheim, a lesbian Feminist who previously was editor-in-chief of the left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, worked for years in senior positions at the state broadcaster NRK.

 

The English Wikipedia entry on me by mid-June 2012 was extremely negative and biased. The opinions of known ideological enemies were presented as the gospel truth. It matter-of-factly referred to Eurabia as a “conspiracy theory” and contained several outright falsehoods about my person. For example, it claimed that the Norwegian police “called me in for questioning” and that I “agreed” to have my premises searched. I did no such thing. They couldn’t call me in for questioning, since neither they nor the press had any idea who I was.

 

I did not agree to have my flat ransacked, and I still question the legality of doing so to a witness with no criminal record, given that the police didn’t have a shred of evidence that this person had committed a crime. Unfortunately, I apparently cannot try the legality of their action in a court afterwards because the Supreme Court has ruled against this. Which means that the Norwegian police, without having permission from a judge, can ransack the flat of a person who is not charged with anything criminal, and confiscate whatever they want, and that person cannot contest this decision in a court afterwards because by then the damage has already been done.

 

For the record: the report from my questioning written by the police themselves, which I later signed, clearly stated that my lawyer and I did not approve of my premises being searched. Therefore the account published in Wikipedia is a lie, plain and simple.

 

The entire entry reads like a case study in character assassination. There are almost too many things about my profile there to criticize, but take this quote as an example: “Norwegian historian Vidar Enebakk has criticised the way he thought Fjordman misused academic research for political purposes. Øyvind Strømmen argues that Fjordman’s essays fulfill all the criteria of Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism. The Norwegian professor Arnulf Hagen claims that there was much to suggest that Fjordman had a Wikipedia account which made 2000 edits.”

 

Let’s start with the final claim first. Arnulf Hagen, a technology professor at NTNU, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in the city of Trondheim, claimed that Wikipedia has been manipulated by “right-wing extremist networks.” He did point out some real flaws in the Wikipedia model, for instance that a tiny percentage of its anonymous users are responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of edits or entries there.

 

In a magazine published by the labor unions (LO), which cooperate intimately with the Labor Party, Hagen suggested that I have operated within a vast right-wing extremist network in the Wiki-world under the nickname Misheu, and there edited more than two thousand articles. That’s definitely a very interesting theory. The only problem with it is that is has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever and is 100% fabricated. I never had anything actively to do with Wikipedia at all under any name until well after the Breivik case, when I first contacted them to request that a few statements on their extremely hostile entries on me be edited. I didn’t even know how to log in there.

 

That fact didn’t prevent Mr. Hagen from publishing several articles about this issue and being interviewed about it by the national broadcaster NRK. Curiously, nobody asked me about the matter even though quite a few journalists have my email address.

 

In another venue, Professor Arnulf Hagen, again without having the tiniest shred of evidence, stated that the American author Bruce Bawer writes at the blog Gates of Vienna under the pseudonym The Observer. For the record: I know who The Observer is, and he is an ethnic Norwegian.

 

Wikipedia suggests that Eurabia is a “conspiracy theory,” despite the fact that those wring about this subject can back up every single claim using publicly available sources. I am also routinely refereed to as a “conspiracy theorist” in the mainstream media in multiple countries, despite the fact that they find it hard to pinpoint exactly what I have written that is factually wrong. Yet here we have a case where a respected academic at a noted national university simply invents things out of thin air, thereby implicating named individuals in a vast conspiracy. He had these claims published with nary a single critical question asked by established journalists.

 

It says bad things about the state of modern academia when an established professor, who is supposed to know a thing or two about sources and doing critical research, fails so utterly and publicly in this task. I hope Hagen is better at his job under normal circumstances. If not, perhaps he should consider finding a different line of work.

As for the second claim, in the Norwegian, English and German entries on me, writer Øyvind Strømmen is referenced as an objective scholar saying that I am a “Fascist.” Under relevant literature in the Norwegian entry for “Eurabia,” Strømmen is listed along with the far-Left and pro-Islamic Swedish activist Andreas Malm, who writes for the Socialist newspaper Internationalen. Yet, incredibly enough, Bat Ye’or’s book from 2005 is not mentioned.

 

By comparison, Strømmen’s entries in English and Norwegian were entirely positive, simply praising him for his “insights” into “conspiracy theories utilized by the far-right, anti-Islamic groups in Europe.” The entries in both languages contain hardly a single critical word about him, despite the fact that a substantial number of people do not agree with Mr. Strømmen and some seriously question his alleged credentials as an academic “expert.” The difference is that the political Left, who appear to control Wikipedia, like him, but not me.

 

I pointed out to the encyclopedia that Strømmen has no stronger academic credentials than I do and is highly politicized. If his opinions about me can be cited on my Wiki profile, it is only fair and balanced that I be allowed to state my opinions about him, too, which have been quoted in the press previously. They ignored this plea.

 

As for the third claim, the researcher Vidar Enebakk from the University of Oslo, who has acted as a visiting scholar at the University of Cambridge in England on the history of science, in September 2011 wrote an essay in the newspaper VG concerning the articles I have published on the Internet about the history of science, from geology to quantum physics.

 

According to him, the range of my writings is impressive, their contents “scarily good,” although he did admittedly have some reservations about some of my interpretations.

 

Enebakk does not agree with my political views at all, but he was nevertheless fair enough to evaluate my writings on science and found them well-informed.

 

As for being politicized, history-writing is probably always politicized, but has become extremely so over the past decades under Multicultural and Marxist pressures. I am simply making a modest attempt to add some sorely needed counterbalance to what I consider to be anti-European propaganda, and can always document what I write. Far too many myths about alleged European Christian evilness and Islamic tolerance and scientific progress are allowed to remain unchallenged today.

 

In 2009 and 2010 I published A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology, A History of Geology and Planetary Science and A History of Beer. These three essays alone amount to more than 74,000 words, or a full-length book. All of this was published for free. I didn’t receive a single cent for doing this and didn’t ask for any, either. I have written very extensive historical essays about the history of European music, mathematics, optics, Indo-European linguistics, superstring theory and chocolate. I’ve spent years researching how Europe and the Islamic world used the Greco-Roman cultural legacy differently. Again, all published online entirely for free.

 

Scientific history is not a marginal part of my production but has been purposefully ignored by Wikipedia. I have written more about astronomy and astrophysics than I have about radical Feminism, but one would know nothing about that from reading their entries. I sent links to these and other essays of mine that can be found on the Internet on the so-called Fjordman Files to Wikipedia Norway. I was answered by John Erling Blad. Yet they deliberately chose to ignore them, despite the fact that I could easily document all of my claims. This amounts to a crystal-clear violation of Wikipedia’s own stated principles, presumably for political reasons.

 

The Norwegian Wiki entry under “political debate” said that I declined a challenge by Abid Raja, a politician of Pakistani descent, for a debate in August 2011. At that point I had needed a few weeks off to recover from the inhuman media pressure against my person. I also didn’t like the bullying “You’re going to participate in my media stunt or I’ll call you a coward” attitude. That was all the entry said under political debate, even though I could easily document that I have published quite a few texts in the press after this. Again, this fact was willfully ignored.

 

A suspicion that this is done for ideological reasons is strengthened by statements made to the mass media. The public broadcaster NRK, Norway’s equivalent of the BBC, stated that Wikipedia needs help to increase patrolling and keep “right-wing extremists” away. Jarle Vines, the leader of Wikimedia Norway, warned that even the boundlessly evil Fjordman has tried to manipulate the entries. Ironically, Mr. Vines highlighted the goals of being “objective,” fair and “balanced.” I contacted Wikipedia regarding my entry and a couple of others precisely because I found them seriously lacking in terms of being objective, fair and balanced.

 

“There is no lack of people who share Breivik’s opinions among users of Wikipedia,” says Jarle Vines, especially on controversial topics such as Islamophobia. Harald Haugland, a member of the Wikipedia administration, thinks there is reason to believe that like-minded groups concentrate on the English version, which has many more readers. He warns against using the encyclopedia as a primary source of scholarly knowledge, however.

 

Suggestions have been made that people who “sympathize with Breivik,” by which they seem to mean anybody who thinks that Islamic Jihad and the spread of sharia are greater threats than Islamophobia, have launched an assault on Wikipedia. Yet their entry on “Islamophobia” in languages such as English, German, French, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Danish presents Islamophobia as a serious problem that could threaten world peace, indicating a very substantial and possibly systemic Wikipedia bias in favor of Islam and Multiculturalism.

 

The Islamic convert Anne Sophie Roald, a professor in History of Religion, has indicated that Islamophobia was recognized as intolerance at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance in January 2001. The conference, attended by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Secretary General Ján Kubis and representatives of the European Union and Council of Europe, adopted a declaration to combat “genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia” as well as all forms of discrimination.

 

This program to combat Islamophobia in any way, shape or form has over the past decade been institutionalized at a pan-European level in the CoE and the EU, in cooperation with Islamic organizations. These are not empty words.

 

Notice that this conference about combating opposition to Islam took place before the attacks of September 11th, 2001. It did not happen in response to any particular event; it was part of an ongoing process at the highest levels of European policy-making, the UN and other organizations to clamp down upon any criticism of Islam.

 

When compiling his manifesto or compendium, Anders Behring Breivik made extensive use of Wikipedia, which he briefly suggested might be a battlefield. Yet as these examples demonstrate, Wikipedia arguably suffers from a substantial bias towards the very forces Breivik professes to hate, which reminds us once more of how clueless Breivik has often been.

 

What conclusions can be drawn from this? I’m not suggesting that no one should ever use Wikipedia under any circumstances. With caution, I occasionally do so myself, at least as one of many sources, when searching for simple factual information about subjects that are not politically charged. However, the more politicized the subjects or individuals involved become, the less reliable Wikipedia becomes as well.

 

Wikipedia should be treated in the same manner as the BBC. The BBC is fine as long as one is interested in cars or the colorful sex life of some rare beetle on Madagascar. One just shouldn’t rely on it for information concerning ideology, politics, culture, religion or world affairs.

____________________________

EuropeNews Homepage

 

About EuropeNews:

 

• EuropeNews represents the principles of freedom of the press, clarification & human rights against canons of religious intolerance and terrorism.

 

• EuropeNews Press Review gathers independent day-by-day news regardless of political standpoints or ideologies.

 

• EuropeNews select the best articles from the most credible of thousands of information sources, to show the diversity of viewpoints and information available with modern media.

 

• EuropeNews media monitoring stands for transparent democracy.

 

• EuropeNews editorial staff followes no political or economic interests, but offers daily updated a wide selection of articles about democracy & Islam Ideologie.

 

• EuropeNews is a neutral media service run by volunteer effort. Our editoral and financial independence is important to us.

 

Read Entire About Page