Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?


3:05 pm - August 1st 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

[Post update – see ‘the evidence’ section below]

The Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips has written an article attacking me today. That is the amusing part.

But looking at how she deals with Breivik’s heinous terrorism… here’s what I think Melanie Phillips is trying to tell us:

[Former Norwegian PM] Jagland, however, said leaders would be ‘playing with fire’ if they continued to use rhetoric [on multi-culturalism] that could be exploited by extremists such as Breivik.

This is because Breivik’s so-called manifesto shows that he is violently against mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation — and that he wants the forced repatriation of Muslims from Europe and the murder of all who have promoted multiculturalism.

But to connect such abhorrent ravings with Cameron’s comments is simply grotesque.

Lesson 1 by Melanie Phillips is that you should never connect the views of terrorists with what political leaders say. Apparently politicians have no impact on the population whatsoever

First and foremost, this is treating Breivik as if his words deserve to be taken seriously and at face value.

As of now, however, we don’t know whether Breivik is psychotic, a psychopath or under the influence of all the drugs he claims to have taken.

Lesson 2: We should never take at face-value what terrorists say or claim, even if they’ve spent years discussing those views, writing them, and planning for an attack.

Painting them as a ‘psychopath’ or a druggie helps push the view they didn’t know what they were doing and can’t possibly have been driven by ideology.

We also don’t know what part, if any, his political views actually played in this atrocity.

After all, since his target was his country’s Labour party one might just as well surmise that he was motivated by hatred of his father, who was a Labour party supporter and who was divorced from Breivik’s mother when the killer was a baby.

Lesson 3: The fact that he wrote long texts explaining why he wanted to carry out those actions, should not mean he was influenced by them! His political views may be entirely accidental to this atrocity!

When Muslims commit terrorism, even if they’re not religious, we know they are influenced by their religion.

However, when its far-right terrorism, we just don’t know if they were influenced by articles in the Daily Mail. Got that?

In any event, someone who travels to a teenagers’ summer camp and invites them all to gather round so that he can kill them all cannot be considered rational.

I’m not sure any mass-murderer can be considered rational. See Lesson 2.

Even if he was motivated by hostility to multiculturalism and Islam, it is perverse to suggest that no one should write about these things because some deranged person raving about such ideas has run amok.

Lesson 4: When far-right terrorists kill, we should not be silent on the issues they raised. However, if Muslims kill others, then we should ask why their terrorism-inciting extremist views are unchallenged.

Jagland seems to be cynically exploiting the murder of more than 70 innocents to make a connection which is as obnoxious as it is opportunistic in order to bully into silence those who express such legitimate democratic concerns.

Lesson 5: It’s these lefties who are exploiting the terrorist attacks! A right-winger would never use a terrorist atrocity to make a political point.

Neither would right-wingers ever make a connection between the views of the terrorist and certain political / religious leaders. OK?

… And then she attacks me. Which is nice. I’m now going to buy the Daily Mail and frame that article.

THE EVIDENCE

Melanie Phillips would of course never contradict herself would she?

The flaw lies in its definition of the problem as ‘violent’ extremism.

It refuses to acknowledge that even people who do not themselves advocate violence but who promote extremist and seditious views, such as the overthrow of British society and the [imposition of Islamic sharia law], are a threat to this country by inciting hatred and resentment, thus swelling the sea in which violence swims.

Oh dear. Replace ‘Imposing sharia Law’ with wanting a mono-racial and mono-cultural society, and you get the same don’t you?

And she says she makes a distinction between violent and non-violent Muslims….

The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media,

(via Larry in the comments below) Hmmm, really?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Maybe Breiviki’s mother made him commit terrorism? I blame the Broken Society!

We also don’t know what part, if any, his political views actually played in this atrocity

A statement as absurdly self-serving as this is actually quite offensive, given how important it is to understand what happened in Norway in order to stop it happening again. If Phillips is prepared to warp debate on this subject just to save her own blushes then that really does tell you everything you need to know.

Typical Daily Mail really. Convinced they’re on the the moral high ground when actually, they’re in the gutter.

I’m not sure what one can really say about what might motivate a nutter like Breivik. Whatever politics were involved they must only be a small part of the story, really just a framework for his madness. It really is not right at this stage for anyone to start making political points based on what little we know.

For me the only reasonable thing to say of him, along with the Red Brigades, PIRA, Ulster loyalist thugs, jihadist thugs etc, is fuck him, the bloody shitty, murdering, inadequate specimen of low scum.

I’d like to see his name less and his picture never, as he is obviously bent on seeking publicity and hero status. We should deny him his wishes, especially on this website where I tire of seeing that awful picture of him.

In a Melanie-Phillips-moon-logic sort of way, this approach isn’t actually inconsistent with her approach to Muslims who commit acts of terrorism.

Remember the 7/7 perpetrators’ videos saying how British foreign policy was a major factor in their actions? We could ignore their political views too. They had nothing to do with it. It’s all about them being Muslims and wanting to take over the world.

It seems that if you’re convinced the Muslims are gonna get us, you can ignore any terrorist’s stated motivations if they make you feel like you might have to examine your own actions.

Mel says: “Some of the comments about me that the Guardian allowed on its website below Milne’s article were vicious.”

Does she not read comments in The Mail? The Guardian is a pussy cat in comparison!

Agree with Cherub–I for one refuse to mention that cnut by name.

Also, agree with Sunny–rather sad but hardly unexpected to see Phillips dissembling all over the place. How can she stand the cognitive dissonance? Now, in the future when she talks about “Islamic terrorism”, everyone can simply say, yes, but we don’t know if their Islamic-extremist views played any part in their terrorism.

“I’m now going to buy the Daily Mail and frame that article.”

Good man.

I was quite pleased that Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto praised the extremist views of Mad Mel as inspiring him.

Surely, the article is asking the wrong question? Perhaps, it should have been Did Phillips’ extremist views play a part in terrorism?

I was quite pleased that Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto praised the extremist views of Mad Mel as inspiring him

That seems like an odd thing to be pleased about.

As I can gather he has been estranged from his father for many years, so maybe he does hate his father?

She shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this lie either:

“I have always stressed the distinction between peaceful Muslims and Islamic extremism”

Here is an example of her stressing that distinction, by thundering on about “The moral depravity of the Arabs”.

All of them apparently.

12. flyingrodent

Melanie manages to have her cake and eat it here, too…

The claim that ‘blood is on my hands’ can so easily translate into someone seeking my own blood. Heaven forbid that should happen — but if it did, there would be a direct causal link with those who have whipped up this wicked firestorm.

So, if somebody attacked Melanie, that would for def be directly linked to people criticising her on the internet. Yet, any link between this mass-killer and his self-declared politics is entirely coincidental.

Note also the hilarity of Mel accusing others of trying to “bully her into silence”… In the pages of the nation’s second best-selling daily newspaper.

13. theophrastus

Sunny

“We should never take at face-value what terrorists say or claim, even if they’ve spent years discussing those views, writing them, and planning for an attack.”

No, MP is clearly not saying that. She’s saying we should not rush to judgement, and that we should not take Breivik’s statements and claims at face-value – yet! His motivations may well be more complex than at first they appear.

“When Muslims commit terrorism… we know they are influenced by their religion.”

Yes, if they cite the Koran, which is their sacred text – and so to be obeyed absolutely. Moreover, Islam is a comprehensive (if mistaken) religio-political ideology. Melanie Phillips’s writings are not a sacred text or a source text for an ideology, and there’s no evidence that Breivik regarded her writings as such.

“When far-right terrorists kill, we should not be silent on the issues they raised. However, if Muslims kill others, then we should ask why their terrorism-inciting extremist views are unchallenged.”

You are conflating “the issues they raised” with “terrorism-inciting extremist views”. Terrorists can raise important issues that need to be discussed – eg the problems of multiculturalism (Breivik) or Western foreign policy (Islamists); but these issues are not the same as, and are quite separate from, their belief in the use of terror as a political method. The issues they raise are their ends; the use of terror is the means.

Sunny, I am not sure that the “Lessons” you are drawing from the words attributed to Melanie Phillips would be drawn by a disinterested observer. There seems to be particular confusion in your mind over the difference between reading what someone says and attributing factuality to it.
As a stylistic aside, you will be more convincing if you cull the exclamation marks.
Regards.

@8 – “Jailhouselawyer” ” I was quite pleased that Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto praised the extremist views of Mad Mel as inspiring him.

Surely, the article is asking the wrong question? Perhaps, it should have been Did Phillips’ extremist views play a part in terrorism? ”

Were you also pleased that the mass murderer also praised that great figure of the left, George Orwell, those great thinkers and defenders of liberty Locke and Mill as well as many others.

This is really quite an appalling post.

Melanie Phillips is clearly not a popular person on the left. There is a lot of what she says with which I fundamentally disagree. She overstates a threat of Islamic infilatration into this country. However she is not an extremist by any proper definition of the word. That women in the USA – Pamela Geller – now she is an extremist. Melanie Phillips is simply not in that area.

She is a conservative (with a small ‘c’) commentator and whilst her analysis of our civilisation and her drawing to attention the dubious moral relativism often practised by the left may irk many who read LibCon – she is not the only such commentator who appears widely in the printed and online media. It is also important in a democracy to have educated, considered well written views out there for all to consider.

Why then is she so much singled out (particularly it seems by Sunny)? Is it I wonder because of her uncompromising support for the Jews of Israel?

When a Muslim carries out an atrocity, it is immediately ascribed to ideology (be it religious, political or a combination of both).

When a neo-Fascist does the same, immediately we see the ‘decent’ right falling over themselves to pin his actions on mental illness, and denying that the ideology that they themselves have done a large part in pushing was either a cornerstone or at least a substantial contributory factor in what led him to commit his crime.

As for Phillips, I remember what the journalist Edward Pearce said many years ago about a similar left-to-far-right columnist, Paul Johnson:

“Paul Johnson isn’t a loose cannon; he’s a low-calibre gun on a swivel mount. When he dies, they’ll bury him with an exclamation mark through his heart.”

“Paul Johnson isn’t a loose cannon; he’s a low-calibre gun on a swivel mount. When he dies, they’ll bury him with an exclamation mark through his heart.”

Lol

18. Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs)

How to think like Melanie Philips:

1) Drink a gallon of black coffee
2) Imagine that everyone else in the world is a gay, Marxist Muslim who longs to destroy Israel.

19. Chaise Guevara

@ 15 Paul D

“Why then is she so much singled out (particularly it seems by Sunny)? Is it I wonder because of her uncompromising support for the Jews of Israel?”

Um, I suspect because it’s hard to think of anyone as high-profile as Phillips who spouts quite as much ludicrous and offensive drivel. Well, Littlejohn of course, but he gets singled out too. The point is that most other major conservative commentators are far less over-the-top.

Why the word “Jews” in that sentence, btw, given that you could have just as easily said “support for Israel”? Is there a point that you’re trying to make?

@ 9. vimothy “That seems like an odd thing to be pleased about”.

Not when she thinks she is the voice of reason. Had he cited Sunny instead she would be in a jubliant mood.

@ 15. Paul D I find nothing wrong with somone admiring the writings of left and right. But for her attack on Sunny I would not have mentioned her connection to a terrorist act. I don’t like her for her attacks on me and prisoners votes.

While I think that Mel is indeed somewhat ”Mad” – on the whole my sympathies lie with her in this area. Not because of anything she’s said in that article or recently – she’s not particularly good here – but I’ve not been impressed with the whole ”witch hunt” …. like where George Galloway the other night even implicated Jon Gaunt alongside Mel as being culpable. Jon Gaunt (as far as I’m aware) has never got involved with any ”Eurabia” like talk.

”Londonistan” was a very dodgy book, but going after the authors personally is not the thing to do in my opinion. Some of the hate blogs deserve it. Gates of Vienna and Fjordeman I think deserve to be lambasted, but this general sweep of all right wingers is too much.
Seumas Milne was poor, and the Independent fingered Thilo Sarrazin for his book ”Germany Abolishes Itself”.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10948/

And there’s Jai over on Pickled Politics working up a head of steam over links between the EDL and Norway, and taking no criticism (deleting unwanted comments).
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/13387

I think one has to be careful not to go too overboard with the ”Anti-Fascist” conspiracy theories.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ Damon

I agree that people are getting a bit opportunistic here (e.g. the links with the EDL; Breivik might have had EDL supporters as Facebook friends but that doesn’t mean they endorsed his later actions). But Phillips is being attacked for comments she has made publically. Is it wrong to argue back?

@21 Damon

“”Londonistan” was a very dodgy book, but going after the authors personally is not the thing to do in my opinion.”

I’m struggling here. I’m quite happy to admit when someone I normally respect writes a stinker. Think of Salman Rushdie’s sham adoption of Islam, or the Hari affair. If I’m not to criticise the auther, then who?

Chaise Guevara and Cherub, there were lots of examples in my post. There’s several links in that Spiked article alone.
One of them titled ”The ideological roots of the Oslo atrocity” starts off like this:

Since the attacks carried out in Oslo last Friday, there has been a concerted campaign by the bourgeois establishment in Europe to deny that the murderous rampage conducted by Anders Behring Breivik was motivated by anti-Islamist prejudices with deep roots in mainstream politics.

Admittidly, that’s some rather obscure communists, but that mood has been everywhere hasn’t it? Pointing the fingure for Norway at anyone who has ever spent ”too much” time focussing on anything to do with muslims or immigration.

It is fair to go after Phillips and authors for their output, but I don’t agree with the excitable connections everyone has been making over Norway, and particularly when those links are tenuous at best.
People from UAF could be accused the same way if some random person went out and killed a BNP member. But they would not be to blame, the killer would be.

Who’s going after Phillips “personally”? That would be to abuse her looks, dress sense, family life – anything that is personal. What people are castigating are her wacky opinions, style of crazed hysteria and lack of proportion. The end of civlisation is always about five minutes away, according to her.

26. theophrastus

FR @ 12:

“So, if somebody attacked Melanie, that would for def be directly linked to people criticising her on the internet. Yet, any link between this mass-killer and his self-declared politics is entirely coincidental. ”

No, she is not trying to have it both ways, because the two scenarios you mention here are not symmetrical.

If (which is unlikely) some leftist or Islamist thug attacked Melanie having read claims on leftist websites that she has “blood on her hands”, there would be a direct causal link between the malicious propaganda and the attack. And if there is a direct causal link, then there is at least some culpability.

However, there is no direct causal link between Breivik’s killing spree and anything written by Melanie Phillips or any other major UK columnist. No direct causal link means no culpability. That said, we may yet find that there is a direct causal link between Breivik’s murderous actions and some malicious propaganda he had read on some fringe and extreme anti-Islamic website.

27. Elagabalus

You’re right in most of this article except where you say Melanie Phillips is wrong to label him a psychopath. Umm… I think there is a very good chance he is. Nobody with a shred of normal human empathy would have the stomach to spend two hours gunning down scores of teenagers.

Sunny,

Lesson 1: “What goes around comes around”.

Your evident glee at trying to connect the views of Melanie Phillips with the killings in Oslo do you no credit whatsoever. Your repeat articles about her show you are hunting with the pack instead of thinking with your brain.

You’ve raised raised your head above the parapet to kick both Melanie Phillips and Rod Liddle when they were vulnerable. So don’t come crying to LibCon if they highlight to a mass audience any embarrassing comments or articles on this site which leave you prone to wide spread ridicule. They and the old tale of the ‘blogger who lives witty his mum’ could become what defines you rather than your prodigeous output.

PS: We’re still waiting for your articles linking Gandhi, Frank Field and George Orwell with the killings in Oslo.

Stop picking on old ferret face Sunny, leave the poor confused old bint alone.

Yeah I am waiting for Frank Field to be linked to, though I cant possible think what can make that man more right wing. Hehehe, I love the righties constantly banging on about old Field being used as if he is a left wing firebrand…as for Orwell, he has found a home amongst the tinfoil hat wearing right wing (poor sod!)from which this man who commited these vile acts surely belonged too.

30. the a&e charge nurse

I feel the Breivik links have become too Phillips-centric (with no mention of Jezza Clarkson for days now) – can we not widen the net slightly so that other people can be accused of being indirectly culpable for the blood bath?

As a matter of interest does anybody know if Sir Alex Ferguson is in the manifesto?
http://www.funnyblogger.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/funny-pics-of-alex-ferguson.jpeg

cultural marxism eh, bloody hell.

…but I want to insult Mel some more before this story ceases to be of any interest. WAHWAHWAH

DAMMIT! It is getting too mel-centric, people might think us lefties are obessed with her, well screw that!…BRING ME THE HEAD OF CLARKSON!

I’m coming to the conclusion that the loopier end of the anti-Muslim right are incapable of sincere reasoned argument. I can’t for the life in me understand why I never realised this before. It’s not that they are suffering from misconceptions about how the world works. The truth is, they invent ludicrous arguments to support a series of preconceived ideas, e.g. “Islam is a threat.” Adopt a position, and defend it with whatever hatemongering specious verbiage you can muster.

*shakes head sadly*

34. flyingrodent

No, she is not trying to have it both ways, because the two scenarios you mention here are not symmetrical.

Uh, okay pilgrim, nobody worth taking seriously is saying that Mel livestreamed her hate-beams into the killer’s mind and implanted a lust for murder. What they’re saying is that a) She and others like her are significant contributors to an atmosphere of relentless, paranoid alarm and demonisation that feeds hate groups and extremists and that b) When challenged, all of them are massively downplaying and misrepresenting their own previous statements and playing the victim card in an incredibly slimy way.

So, the situations are not symmetrical. On the other hand, if that’s the extent of the argument here, I’m not buying it.

Of course, saying “This particular individual has blood on her hands” is far more specific than Mel et al’s frequent cries “The entire western political/media elite are engaged in a vast conspiracy with the enemies of Christendom to enslave us under a totalitarian alien empire, and something should be done about it”.

Let’s not pretend that the two represent some wholly distinct species of argument though, shall we? After all, Mel herself names enormous numbers of people as part of her vast, impurifying conspiracy of Mohammedan domination. Is she inviting violence against named politicians, journalists and celebrities?

If she’s not, then she should really be pointed and laughed at. If It’s fine for me to pin responsibility for murder on the words of others, but it’s unacceptable, irresponsible, hatemongering incitement when others do the same to me is really the totality of her argument here, then it is – for real, yo – attempting to have your cake and eat it. In about the most childish, stroppy way imaginable.

Confused re comment 29 :

You forgot Gandhi. Do you hace any smartypants comments about his supposed links to the killings in Oslo? Sunny doesn’t. Why is that?

There’s a fabulous comment under the Mad Mel piece, which begins, “To all those oh so self-righteous hippocrites of the left, those “engaged” woolly “liberals”, just remember who sowed the seeds of “activism”, and who sowed the seeds of this tragedy by censoring debate on anything and everything that they didn’t think was PC enough for their liking.” Oh yes, it’s the old, “no one is allowed to talk about” (immigrants, Muslims, etc), even though its a obvious even to a dolt that everyone is. Remember these? Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left (2004) by David Horowitz, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (2007) by Dinesh D’Souza, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (2010) by Andrew C. McCarthy. Huge best sellers, and their ideas touted by right-wing bloggers around the world. But Breivik did it coz the PC lefties stopped people talking about evil Muslims etc! Amazing.

Kojak @35:

“You forgot Gandhi. Do you hace any smartypants comments about his supposed links to the killings in Oslo?”

What links are these? The bits where Brevik says his approach won’t work against Muslims because they’re barbarians. Top links, those.

Whups. Should have been a question mark on the second-last sentence there.

39. theophrastus

FR @ 34:

“She and others like her are significant contributors to an atmosphere of relentless, paranoid alarm and demonisation that feeds hate groups and extremists…”

Vague and weasel words – “significant contributors to an atmosphere…” coupled with exaggeration – “relentless paranoid alarm and demonisation” – and an unproven empirical claim – “that feeds hate groups and extremists…” when said undefined hate groups/extremists are perfectly capable of feeding themselves.

“Let’s not pretend that the two represent some wholly distinct species of argument though, shall we?”

But they aren’t identical, are they? ‘Something should be done about x’ and
‘M has blood on her hands because she said something should be done about x repeatedly and then B…’ are different sorts of claim. One is a warning or analysis, the other is an attribution of causality and culpability – and an attribuition which is at odds with English law and with discussions of responsibility going back to the ancient Greeks…

Melanie Phillips is no more responsible for Breivik’s killing spree than left-wing journalists were responsible for the actions of the Angry Brigade, Baader-Meinhof or the Red Brigades. Right or left, there’s just no causal connexion, so there’s no culpability..

However, if anyone had claimed that those left-wing journalists had blood on their hands because they shared some concerns with the terrorists, that they were significant contributors to an “atmosphere of relentless paranoid alarm” about the oppressiveness of capitalism that had fed the extremist groups…Well, that could look like incitement…

40. flyingrodent

Melanie Phillips is no more responsible for Breivik’s killing spree than left-wing journalists were responsible for the actions of the Angry Brigade, Baader-Meinhof or the Red Brigades.

Yes, and I’ve said so here and elsewhere repeatedly, to the point where I’m starting to automatically assume that anyone still loudly defending Mel from non-existent accusations of totally brainwashing killers with her magical hate powers just isn’t being honest.

Still, let’s imagine these hypothetical lefty journalists, if they were Mel today. They’d still be free to babble enthusiastically and portentously about the Man and his evil ways, or about the Fascist Insect That Preys Upon The Life Of The People*, or all those other lunatic enthusiasms. Nobody would infringe upon their right to free speech, even if it involved violent rhetoric relating to extremist conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, you can bet your last fiver that somebody would ask them about it if they appeared on Question Time. If they were employed by the country’s second best-selling daily newspaper, advertisers might say things like “I’m not sure we want to associate our product with a columnist who believes the government is evil and must be destroyed”. Their appearances on Radio 4 might include pointed questions about the number of people who believe that who also do things like shoot coppers or blow up post offices; if they responded with even wackier conspiracy theories about their own oppression, they’d be regarded as nutters.

In short, if a lefty 60’s journalist repeatedly claimed in print that LBJ was a genocidal Gorgon heading a fascist empire of death, for instance, they would be treated as extremists, and the subject of their extremism would be on-topic in every interview. If they did it in the 21st Century, they’d probably get lots of criticism on internet blogs. And so, here we are.

Vague and weasel words – “significant contributors to an atmosphere…” coupled with exaggeration – “relentless paranoid alarm and demonisation”

If you’re not familiar with Mel’s output, feel free to Google. I was under the impression that anyone contributing to a thread on her work would be familiar with her habit of accusing great swathes of politicians, hacks and celebs of conspiring in all manner of baleful anti-western schemes.

And an unproven empirical claim – “that feeds hate groups and extremists…” when said undefined hate groups/extremists are perfectly capable of feeding themselves.

Fuck a duck man, people can create their own drugs and pornography but as a society, we don’t generally accord much respect to drug dealers or pornographers. Creating and disseminating conspiracist propaganda about liberal-jihadist plots against the populace isn’t an admirable behaviour for a pamphleteer or a blogger, let alone a mainstream journalist… And remember, the Mail and the Spectator are the mainstream right-wing press outlets, and they’re carrying material that wouldn’t look out of place in a Nick Griffin speech. You don’t have to be the UAF to think this is bad news.

*Genuine quote from that wacky era – Symbionese Liberation Army, kidnappers of Patty Hearst.

Interesting piece in Foreign Policy by someone else who was cited by Breivik.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/01/a_murderers_manifesto_and_me

The other lesson I take from Breivik is also a theme of much of my writing on global demographics. Societies that are, or that perceive themselves to be, in demographic decline are potentially dangerous, as fear of being outbred and overrun by “others” awakens reactionary sentiment. In the United States during the early decades of the last century, fears of “race suicide,” voiced by figures ranging from Theodore Roosevelt to Margaret Sanger, led to the horrors of the eugenics movement, to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, and to the closing of America’s immigration gate until the 1960s.

Today, I see a similar dynamic unfolding in the United States and to a much greater extent in Europe and Russia, as low birth rates combine with high rates of immigration to produce a stew of racial fear and resentment that brings with it a resurgence of nationalism, fundamentalism, and a deep backlash against multicultural and progressive values.

5cc regarding comment 37:

Gandhi was mentioned in Breivik’s statement. So why no article trying to link him to the motivation of the killer? It’s a ‘Mel-fest’ over here.

Does no one else find it funny how Sunny has run 3 or 4 stories linking Melanie Phillips with the dreadful killings in Oslo, yet when she mentions this on her blog Sunny starts off this article with: “The Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips has written an article attacking me today……….” Ah, didums.

Sunny, for a blogger you have a very thin skin – Melanie Phillips is the one who is being polite in responding to your frequent jibes. She isn’t “attacking you” – though perhaps that is what you secretly would like her to do.

43. Ian McKenna

Give it up, Hadel. You’re toast.

Don’t mess with Melanie, she’s Premier League. You’re not even Irn-Bru Third.

The writer of the above seems to be obsessed with Philips – it’s bordering on stalking at the moment.

@24 damon

Do you really think that citing “Spiked” will be taken seriously? Do you know anything about them?

Kojak @42:

“Gandhi was mentioned in Breivik’s statement. So why no article trying to link him to the motivation of the killer? It’s a ‘Mel-fest’ over here.”

Heh. Do you not see the difference between a mention that talks about how Ghandi’s approach wouldn’t work with Muslims because they’re barbarians and reproducing an article by Phillips used to support the idea of a secret government plot to import immigrants?

45. Cherub. Yes I know plenty about them. But I only linked to one article about an interview with Thilo Sarrazin, who was besmirched in an editorial in the Independent, which said this:

Across Europe, the far right has been growing in strength in recent years, propelled by a strong current of Islamophobia. This poisonous mindset is sometimes stoked by ostensibly respectable political groups like Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in Holland, or mainstream voices like the former Bundesbank member, Thilo Sarrazin, who has written a best-seller called Germany Does Away With Itself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-a-massacre-born-from-a-poisonous-mindset-2319939.html

I linked to an interview he did in answer to these critics. That’s all.

idiotic piece, why waste space with this rubbish, breivik is an adult, he’s responsible otherwise your all guilty of hatred and incitement to someone.

It is always good to see the odious Melanie Phillips squirm. She made a deliberately provocative, racist point about “The moral depravity of the Arabs” and now is trying desperately to rewrite history.

50. Ian McKenna

Charles 49

The Arabs, in general, ARE a pretty depraved bunch, didn’t you know?

Their racism echoes that of the Nazis and it’s all underpinned with the teachings of the Koran and the comments and commands in the hadiths.

You really should check your facts before rushing into print and making a fool of yourself.

Yeah, what 5cc said…and btw my smartypants are my best pants, better then my skidmark ones.

What a pity that Sinny and “Liberal” Conspiracy censor ant serious attempt to dispute with them. Clearly they have, politically, far more in common with Breivik than Melanie has.

@52 Theres a load of deleted comments we don’t know about? Or are you so thick you can’t tell the difference between censorship and criticism?

I dunno -Fascists used to be inspired by philosophers like Nietzsche & Plato, nowadays they’re reduced to quoting hacks like Mad Mel & Mark Steyn.

We just aren’t producing the same quality of fascist these days

Fascism quite obviously doesn’t work so the intelligent are unlikely to join. However there are still plenty of idiots and the “left” has been happy to welcome ecofascists and more traditional ones like Sunny, into their fold.

You are a tw** Sunny but then you seem to be a liberal rather than a logical intellectual. Says it all

You got owned!!!! you are Melanie’s Bitch now…..

58. victoria williams

Melanie Phillips has her own agenda as evdenced in her now defunct Spectator blog which took every opportunity to paint the worst image of the arabs and praise unreservedly the actions of extreme right wing Israeli groups. Fortunately the Spectator realised that her message promoted racism.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  2. Richard Smith

    .@libcon Alternative Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's _brain_ played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  3. Riven

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  4. sunny hundal

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  5. kirst

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  6. julie redman

    RT @libcon: Phillips: Did Breivik's views really play a part in terrorism? http://t.co/S3rvYUI

  7. Stephen Tunstall

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  8. Josie Long

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  9. Paul Moloney

    RT @sunny_hundal What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  10. Jon

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  11. Jerome Taylor

    Good dissection of Melanie Phillips' piece today on Breivik by @sunny_hundal http://t.co/kUEUAsc

  12. magicredpill

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  13. Mark Chatterley

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  14. Aaron Chandra

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  15. Aidan Barlow

    from @sunny_hundal takes apart Melanie Phillips as she tries to distance her own ideology from the terrorist Breivik http://t.co/04Cwckh

  16. Adam Armstrong

    RT @sunny_hundal What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://sgp.cm/ee4281

  17. Mark Eveleigh

    No $h!t Sherlock “@libcon: Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://t.co/GVsPFJW”

  18. 5 Chinese Crackers

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  19. Andrew Haydon

    Pretty much a pitch-perfect take-down of Melanie Philips, re: Norway and her culpability – http://t.co/6yCLsUs via @libcon

  20. Miles I. Hamer

    RT @libcon: Phillips: Did Breivik's views really play a part in terrorism? http://t.co/ViXS9Oj

  21. Michael Bater

    Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism? | Liberal Conspiracy: http://t.co/5cKHD0O

  22. Simon Scott

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  23. Asher Treleaven

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  24. sunny hundal

    Melanie Phillips says we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism? Really? http://t.co/1yZBdYu

  25. Dave Tart

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  26. John J. Bullock

    Melanie Phillips says we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism? Really? http://t.co/1yZBdYu

  27. Cyrus Bulsara

    More bonkers from Melanie Phillips: http://j.mp/oSGQjG

  28. Milena Buyum

    Melanie Phillips says we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism? Really? http://t.co/1yZBdYu

  29. Corrie Lewis-Bishop

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  30. Bindya Solanki

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  31. Thomas Gardiner

    Melanie phillips is evil RT @libcon: Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  32. Tessa Marshall

    Good dissection of Melanie Phillips' piece today on Breivik by @sunny_hundal http://t.co/kUEUAsc

  33. old_chap

    @sunny_hundal http://t.co/Cg2KLJp Each as off kilter as the other, I gained nothing from this analysis

  34. Libby Potter

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  35. Wayne McNally

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  36. Peter Marshall

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  37. Naveed

    Melanie Phillips says we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism? Really? http://t.co/1yZBdYu

  38. Sam Bedford

    This is also excellent RT @sunny_hundal What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://t.co/NPrwlGC

  39. David Gregory

    Melanie Phillips: we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism. Yeah, right. http://t.co/x1AOTDb via @libcon

  40. Chris Stagg

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  41. Luther

    RT @libcon: Phillips: Did Breivik's views really play a part in terrorism? http://t.co/mINb666

  42. Rich

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  43. Laura Cowan

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  44. Christy G

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  45. Twitted by libcon

    […] This post was Twitted by libcon […]

  46. Deep Sandune

    Melanie Phillips says we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism? Really? http://t.co/1yZBdYu

  47. morgan lloyd malcolm

    Pretty much a pitch-perfect take-down of Melanie Philips, re: Norway and her culpability – http://t.co/6yCLsUs via @libcon

  48. Turhan Ozen

    Melanie Phillips says we don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism? Really? http://t.co/1yZBdYu

  49. Neill Shenton

    @sunny_hundal on Melanie Phillips: http://t.co/cxjGWmT <congrats on the reference & getting her goat! She really #makesmemad

  50. Stephe Meloy

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  51. Luther

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  52. John Nor

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  53. Nick Mellish

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  54. Dr. Matt Lodder

    ? " Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism? http://bit.ly/pIN1nw "

  55. Sophie Khan

    Good dissection of Melanie Phillips' piece today on Breivik by @sunny_hundal http://t.co/kUEUAsc

  56. Jason Hibbert

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  57. Anthony Binder

    Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/cwyuxip via @libcon

  58. Clare Henwood

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  59. Sophie Earnshaw

    RT @SCTunstall RT @libcon: Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  60. Robin Ince

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  61. It's me

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  62. The Incidental Rebel

    Brilliant, please read RT@sunny_hundal What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://t.co/o6x3EgZ

  63. Sofia ismail

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  64. Ella Griffiths

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  65. Guy Hornsby Dropout

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  66. sunny hundal

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  67. Luther

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  68. John Nor

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  69. Natacha Kennedy

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  70. Jane Phillips

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  71. Chris Paul

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  72. Steve Ford

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  73. Benedict Singleton

    "Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?" | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6MEHEJ0

  74. yorkierosie

    RT @sunny_hundal: Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  75. Deep Sandune

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  76. Robert How

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  77. Raisa

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  78. magicredpill

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  79. MPACUK

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  80. Natacha Kennedy

    @melanielatest own words expose her as a hypocrite http://bit.ly/oSGQjG

  81. Robert CP

    Melanie Phillips: We don't know if Breivik's views played a part in his terrorism http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  82. Rocky Hamster

    Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/UonvyLW via @libcon

  83. Hassan Ali

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  84. Newcastle Occupation

    What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  85. Paul Abbott

    "@sunny_hundal: Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://t.co/9JBBGMv (see update)" Quite

  86. emmie baker larner

    RT @sunny_hundal What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  87. Sydney MooseMother

    Melanie Phillips writes about terrorism in Norway and contradicts her past articles http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ (see update)

  88. Stephen Tonkin

    Utterly inane! -> RT @sunny_hundal: What did Melanie Phillips really mean in the Mail today? I dissect her views: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  89. Stephen Tonkin

    I'm no fan of Melanie Phillips or the hack-rag she infests, but this response is desperately inane MT @sunny_hundal: http://bit.ly/pk6jXZ

  90. Yakoub Islam

    Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism? | Liberal Conspiracy: http://t.co/lxEnnoW via @libcon

  91. RepStones

    @melanielatest own words expose her as a hypocrite http://bit.ly/oSGQjG

  92. Don’t flatter yourself Melanie Phillips – it’s called a political debate | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] blogs today in response to my piece yesterday: First, he appears not to understand the difference between someone who commits mass murder […]

  93. Trickledown | adam

    […] Elsewhere, the Nobel chairman has made some intelligent comments, while Melanie Phillips has proven herself to be right at the other end of the intelligence spectrum…again. […]

  94. Tim Holmes

    Mad Mel: non-violent extremists nevertheless "swell the sea in which violence swims." http://t.co/KVssMIr Physician, heal thyself …

  95. J. Githens-Mazer

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  96. sanaa qureshi

    melanie phillips is a fool. http://t.co/i7ss11PL

  97. Atiff Ghafar

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  98. Osman-Raza Khan

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  99. Sean Brannan

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  100. Chris Horner

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  101. Peter Anderson

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  102. Martin

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  103. Naaz Rashid

    What Melanie Phillips said last yr in Daily Mail: 'Did Anders Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism?' http://t.co/jkKNgztw

  104. Lynn Matheson

    Phillips: Did Breivik’s views really play a part in terrorism? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/xFYnb87Y via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.