Norway's globalist politicians

The atrocity committed by the Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, put the spotlight on a small country that, surprisingly, plays a very large part in global politics; and that the assassin’s target was Gro Harlem Brundtland – currently a Special Envoy on Climate Change for the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – caused Dakota to wonder what it was about that lady that Breivik hated so much, and how she ended up as a globalist politician.

“Brundtland, born 20 April 1939, has such an impressive history of achievements that it is easy, perhaps, for any man to envy her or feel emasculated by her – but obviously her husband did not, basking in her reflected glory to such a degree that he wrote two books about her,” says Dakota. “But because Breivik saw feminism –and feminized men - as one of the curses visited upon his country, and the world, by her generation of ‘cultural Marxists’, it is obvious why he made her a prime target for his hate.”

“From the beginning, Brundtland was a strong advocate of women's rights and as the Norwegian Labor Party’s spokesperson on abortion, she enabled law changes liberating women from unwanted pregnancies and domestic servitude,” says Dakota. “Breivik no doubt blamed her for Norway’s low ethnic birth rate and the rise of immigration in his country - a trend common across western nations.”

“In Trygve Bratelli’s Labour government, Brundtland held a post that no woman had ever previously held - environmental minister for the country,” says Dakota, “and this strikes me as odd because her qualifications were in medicine and public health – but when you consider that Breivik listed environmentalists as eco-Marxists whose true agenda is to create a world government led by the UN you can understand why Brundtland moved into that area.”

“As environmental minister – as well as becoming deputy leader in 1975, the International Year of the Woman – she came to prominence in 1977 when an explosion caused a serious spill at an oil drilling platform in the North Sea,” says Dakota. “She made environmental issues –and herself - very prominent for the voters of the country by speaking out against further drilling expansion in the North Sea, and she was also against damming any more rivers to produce hydroelectric power.”

“In 1981 Brundtland became Norway’s first woman prime minister and, at 42, she also became the youngest person to hold that office,” says Dakota, “but she made a mess of things and was thrown out of office within the year, shortly to start a career in global politics.”

“Impressed by her environmental activism, the United Nations Secretary General gave her the job of chairing the World Commission on Environment,” says Dakota, “and among the 21 representatives she chose to form the commission, holding its first meeting in Switzerland in 1984, was a Canadian entrepreneur, Maurice Strong, (now a Beijing resident).”

“In 1986, Brundtland became prime minister of Norway a second time, with 8 of 18 cabinet members being women,” says Dakota, “and in the same year Maurice Strong’s water development company lost in a bid to pump water underground in Colorado which would have caused ‘significant environmental damage to nearby wetland and sand dune ecosystems by reducing the flow of surface water’- so much for his environmental credentials!”

“The last meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development - aka the Brundtland Commission - took place in 1987 in Japan,” says Dakota. “This commission provided momentum for the infamous Agenda 21 - and it was decided to have another talk fest in five years time at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil, headed by Maurice Strong, where leaders from almost 200 countries attended.”

“Breivik’s manifesto quotes Maurice Strong’s opening remarks at the 1992 Earth Summit as proof that environmentalists are Marxists – ‘Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it part our responsibility to bring that about?’ – and the way they will achieve the West’s downfall is by transferring wealth to the developing nations (i.e. China, where Strong resides) by carbon taxes.”

“In the meantime, Brundtland was re-elected Norwegian prime minister in 1990,” says Dakota, “but her main focus remained on international politics – traveling worldwide promoting environmental issues, population control and the elimination of poverty – the highlight of which came in 1994 she delivered the opening day speech at the UN Population Conference in Egypt.”

“Brundtland’s crowning success in international politics came in 1998 when she was made Director-General of the World Health Organization under Kofi Annan - a post she held until 2003 – despite suffering from uterine cancer in 2002,” says Dakota. “In this post she gained prominence for changing the focus of public health to lifestyle issues and adopting a macroeconomic approach to health – reducing mankind to ‘homo economicus’, nothing more than a worker and a consumer, which is another gripe from Breivik’s manifesto.”

“So, from 1998 to 2003 Brundtland was the prime force behind the worldwide movement to achieve the abolition of cigarette smoking,” explains Dakota, “and under her leadership the WHO became the first employer to discriminate against smokers – a measure which may have affected Breivik, a smoker, personally.”

“At the same time, her good friend, Maurice Strong, became Kofi Annan’s personal envoy but was forced to step down from his post in 2005 after the Oil-for-Food scandal and hiring practice criticisms showed alleged evidence of his corruption.”

In 2007, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made Brundtland a UN Special Envoy for Climate Change – a post she continues to hold as well as working for Pepsi as a consultant,” laughs Dakota. “I have to laugh because isn’t there an incongruity between Pepsi and her former role with WHO, especially as Norway ranks 4th in the world for soft drink consumption?”

“Now 72, Brundtland shows no signs of wearying,” says Dakota. “She is a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters and the Norwegian Humanist Association (the Secretary General of which is Lars Gule, a former leader of the AUF (which the massacred children belonged to) who had been trained in terrorism by the perpetrators of the Maalot Massacre in Israel).

“She is also a member of the Council of Women World Leaders, the Club of Madrid, the Bilderberg meetings, and The Elders (formed by Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his 89th birthday in 2007 and funded by Richard Branson, Peter Gabriel, Ray Chambers, Michael Chambers, Bridgeway Foundation, Pam Omidyar, Humanity United, Amy Robbins, Shashi Ruia, Dick Tarlow and the United Nations Foundation).

“Still married to fellow humanist Arne Olav Brundtland since 1960, she has four children and, like many Norwegian Labour politicians, they own a house in the south of France – as does Breivik’s natural father,” says Dakota, “and it is ironic that she had an operation for uterine cancer in 2002 at a Norwegian hospital when she was resident in France – breaching her ‘homo economicus’ health directive about social security benefits.”

“Bowing to intense media pressure in 2008 about where her allegiances lie, Brundtland has since resumed residence in Norway and intends to repay her health costs,” says Dakota, “but it would have been better for her, and Norway, had she stayed in the south of France rather than continuing her internationalist politics in a land which, under her governance, had contaminated the pure spirit of Norwegian culture with Marxist philosophy and created such a reactionary man as Breivik.”

“A young Breivik, witnessing the rise of Islamism within the western world, but most particularly the complicity of his government in the selling out of fellow Christians in Serbia in 1999, pandering to the Muslims over the Muhammad cartoons and awarding the Peace Prize to Arafat (an Islamic terrorist) saw all of this as the act of traitors.”

“That Brundtland owes her life to a traffic jam – preventing Breivik from reaching her before she gave a speech on Utoya Island to the unfortunate AUF child campers – is something she will no doubt ponder upon for the rest of her life.”

Read more by Dakota:
Was Breivik a secret Israeli operative?
The ethics of politicizing children
Breivik’s online fantasy world
Dating psychos like Breivik
Breivik’s social contract betrayal
Breivik’s July 22 Sarajevo Code
Breivik the white knight
Breivik, Christ’s Knight
Stepfamily loners
be proud of your race!
immigration promotes white shame?

See also:

Age Secrets of Anders Behring Breivik
Breivik’s Aquarian Humanity?

anti-smokers target women, avoid men

After several attacks from anti-smokers who deliberately avoided smoking men in order to target her, Gilda, 56, is wondering whether the anti-smoking crusaders are chicken-livered cowards or whether the campaign is designed to stop women, not men, smoking.

"Traditionally, men have always smoked in our society -- they had smoking rooms and smoking jackets and tobacco clubs where they hung out -- but it's only in relatively recent times that women took up the habit," explains Gilda. "It was very popular with emancipated women from the 1920s onwards, but didn't catch on with working class women until the 1950s."

"We all know what happened after the late 1960s," laughs Gilda, "and I'm wondering whether the anti-smoking campaign is just another backlash by men and their dependent women against feminism."

"Nobody in their right mind could object to the image of a macho guy smoking, let alone try to stop him -- he's so cool," laughs Gilda, "but it's a different story with women smokers, isn't it?"

"Guys of my generation -- the baby boomers -- are reasonably comfortable with women smokers," says Gilda,"It's the older men, the younger men and immigrant men of all ages who seem to have trouble with women smoking."

"Where I lived last year was an elderly couple in their 70s and although the wife was pleasant the husband was incredibly hostile to me -- not only attacking me for smoking but for being a single women, too," laughs Gilda. "He was from the old school who felt a woman's place was at home, under a man's thumb, and that smoking was something guys did, not women!"

"That guy would have a lot in common with Islamic men and might enjoy living under Sharia law where he could stone a few women to death," sighs Gilda, "and his beliefs are pretty widely held by men, and dependent women, of his generation. Too young to have fought with the smoking men and women in WWII, and too old to have enjoyed the 70s. Poor, lost souls."

"There were other smokers in the apartment block -- mostly male -- but that guy left them alone and just attacked me!"

"With immigrant men from backward cultures who denigrate women you expect a bad reception -- and I've had plenty of those in recent years thanks to our government opening the flood gates to middle-eastern refugees," sighs Gilda. "They just don't seem to understand -- or want to understand -- that women in our society have equal rights to men, including the right to smoke."

"At a outdoor coffee bar one lunch-time I was accosted by a middle-eastern man who screamed at me for smoking and raised his hand as if to strike me," says Gilda. "I didn't even see him arrive with his wife and baby and sit behind me. I was too busy reading. Considering we were seated on the sidewalk with vehicles belching out their poisons I was surprised that he didn't see the irony of what he was saying and, why, indeed, he didn't use the non-smoking section of the coffee bar if he objected to cigarette smoke."

"Again, several male smokers were seated outside but this guy left them alone and attacked me," sighs Gilda. "And guess what, the male smokers smirked rather than coming to my aid. Very gallant of them, eh?"

"Young men, too, seem to be particularly averse to women smoking," says Gilda. "I'd be a rich woman if I were paid a dollar for every young man who thought it was his male prerogative to insult a lady for smoking."

"But it's not just men who behave badly towards smoking women," says Gilda. "Women of all ages -- even my own -- seem to be coming out of the woodwork and beating up on members of their own sex who smoke."

"And, like the cowardly male anti-smokers, they target women smokers and leave the male smokers alone," says Gilda. "The young girls at my office have similar complaints so it's not just older women being targeted. In fact, some of the young girls have told me stories about being physically assaulted for smoking by the men in their lives."

"While it's sensible for female crusaders to avoid male smokers in case of violence, it's downright cowardly for the male crusaders to attack women and leave male smokers alone, isn't it? asks Gilda. "So, what is it? Are we looking at deliberate discrimination against female smokers, or just cowardice?"

"Do the anti-smokers want to stop everyone from smoking, or just women?"
"Is the hidden agenda of the anti-smoking campaign to regain tobacco for exclusive male use?"

"Are macho male smokers behind it all?"

"Don't laugh," sighs Gilda. "In this crazy world of government spin and faceless male elites ruling the world behind the scenes, anything is possible."

"You'd think, wouldn't you, that after fifty years of feminism we'd have more respect and political clout than we have today," adds Gilda. "We're going backwards -- no doubt about that -- and I blame globalization and immigration for eroding the feminist values that the grand old dames of the 20th century won for us."

"And, yes, smoking is a feminist issue," asserts Gilda. "Remember the cigarettes Virginia Slims and their slogan 'you've come a long way, baby'? It's all about being treated equally, and if women are being victimized for smoking and men aren't, then something is going on that all women,smokers or not, should be alerted to because you don't know what's coming next."

has feminism caused the fall of religion?

It is only within the last 50 years that the status of women has improved in the western world, and it is more than coincidence that the rise of feminism coincided with the fall of religion.

As feminism permeates non-western cultures a scenario similar to the one the west went through plays itself out. Every gain in every sphere of life - from the franchise, to equal pay and equal rights in marriage - was bitterly fought for by women and bitterly opposed by men in churches, government and private lives who, quite obviously, did not want to lose the absolute power they had enjoyed for thousands of years.

The rise of Black Rights shook the world but not the churches as the movement was predominantly led by black men for black men. Black women, like white women, were still described as chattels, male property, to be beaten for disobedience, in law books as well as religious tracts.

It is difficult, now, to imagine a time when western women had no voting rights, no right to own property, no right to their own bodies, no right to marry or divorce as they pleased, no right to equal pay, no right to walk alone, no right to wear what they pleased, etc. The list is endless. And yet while great changes have taken place in the secular world over the past 50 years, very few changes have happened in the religions regarding the inequality of women. And this desperate clinging to power by the male establishment in the houses of God has turned many women - and enlightened men - away from established religions towards new areas of spirituality.

Religious leaders are not elected by their 'flocks' and are thus not under the same obligation to 'serve' as politicians are. Even while half - or even three-quarters - of the seats in houses of God are emptying, religious leaders remain in the 1950s. Until the old religious leaders die off - opening the way for more enlightened leaders - organized religion will continue to fall in relevance in the western world.

It is only in less enlightened countries - where the vast bulk of women remain downtrodden - that religion remains strong. These countries are centuries behind the western world - but eventually they will catch up. Until then, women will suffer under the yolk of a male dominated dark-aged establishment, earning half the wages of men for equal work and being severely restricted in other areas.

Before feminism, western women were expected to marry at 16 or, at the very latest 21 at which age they were considered 'old and shelf material', and many had to accept a husband chosen by their parents. Very few women were accepted for higher education. It was not considered important to educate girls. Married women were frowned on for working and if they fell pregnant, they were required to leave work. If a single girl fell pregnant, she was required to put the baby up for adoption. There was no easy divorce. Women were effectively at the mercy of men, and men loved the way things were. If any woman complained, the bible was shoved in her face.

Just like thousands of years ago, an adult western woman in the 1950s was expected to live her life through a man and male dominant political and religious institutions forced young girls to toe the line. On half the wages of a man doing similar work, there was no way an ordinary girl could make it on her own. If she didn't marry, she had no social status whatsoever. Although many of these women had competently done the work of men during WWII when their men-folk were at war, they were expected to return to the kitchen sink when their men-folk returned!

The generation of western women that were born after the 1950s - the baby boomers - take their freedom and equal pay for granted, often completely oblivious of the awful fight their mothers and grandmothers fought on their behalf. They are, however, continuing the fight in the houses of God - places where their mothers and grandmothers had no impact whatsoever. They compare their secular lives with their religious lives and see glaring chasms of inequality, iniquity and misogyny. These are the women who are spearheading the shakedown on churches everywhere.

They don't send their children to Sunday school or church camps or allow their sons to become choir boys because they fear they will be molested. And they don't go to church any more because they don't want to see men in frocks telling them what they can and cannot do. And they won't support any organization that does not give career opportunities to women. If a religion bars women from performing ministerial duties, then it is not a religion they want to belong to.

It is any wonder that the non-western religions are tightening their grip, battening down the hatches against the spread of feminism in their lands?