Today the New York Times has published an article about
right wing anti-Islamic blogs as an inspiration for Breivik's "killing
spree."
While these blogs are mostly despicable Talmudic operations,
nevertheless, this is a neat way for the Times to distance itself from a highly
embarrassing fact which it does not wish to confront -- from July 22 - July 23,
the New York Times was part of a larger Zionist Media Conspiracy to Blame
Muslims for the Oslo Terror.
In profiling western media coverage of Breivik thus far,
some patterns are emerging of interest from the point of view of
Revelation-of-the-Method: 1. The Oslo attack is being compared to the 1995 Oklahoma
City bombing, which was a clear-cut US government conspiracy on the
road to building the police surveillance state which 9/11 cemented.
http://www.amazon.com/Oklahoma-City-Bombing-Politics-Terror/dp/0922915490/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311601753&sr=1-1 ,2. Breivik's alleged manifesto is said to have quoted from
Unabomber Ted Kaczyinski's manifesto. As I sought to demonstrate in my book Secret
Societies and Psychological Warfare, Kaczynski was a scapegoat who was under
FBI surveillance during the Unabombings and who could not possibly have
committed all of the attacks attributed to him. After Kaczynski's arrest,
the FBI never searched for accomplices. Kaczynski was under the influence of
psychiatric medication administered 25 hours prior to his "trial."
His Federal-government appointed attorney kept unapproved reporters away from
him and never mounted any defense other than a guilty plea. In other words, Dr.
Kaczynski, a product of LSD mind control experiments conducted while he was at Harvard University,
was used as part of a criminal US
government conspiracy.
For those aware of the mechanics of the
Revelation-of-the-Method, the media's strong identification of Breivik with the
Oklahoma City
Bombing and the Unabomber is a type of twilight language. The sub-rosa message?
Breivik is part of a conspiracy directed by the western Cryptocracy itself.
Anders Behring Breivik
Because Americans are notorious for their historical
amnesia, this would be a good time to refresh our memory concerning the other
July 22 terror bombing -- July 22, 1946.
When recounting shooting sprees it might be useful to recall
the one committed on Purim, 1994.
In a search for patterns one must look everywhere. If one
looks on a map of Kaczynski's adopted hometown, Lincoln,
Montana at the time he resided there, one sees
that the location where he chose to erect his cabin was amid the Scapegoat Mountains and the Scapegoat Eatery.
If one looks at images of Anders Breivik, one sees him
attired in a masonic apron.
Anders Behring Breivik in his masonic apron
Sometimes in our modern desire for complexity we overlook
the significance of the simplest signals.
___________________________________________________
For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page
strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive
statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The
Washington
Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were
responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no
corrections or updates. The morning
statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the
entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror
from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on
intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible
attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly
state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.
But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't
from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of
anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas
Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite
that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some
form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):
Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out
Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or
individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.
"If it does turn out to be someone with more political
motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al
Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New
America Foundation in Washington.
Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when
it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European
nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium
nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the
suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus
could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make
a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once
again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.
Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the
NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the
paper originally reported what it did: Initial reports focused on the
possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or
Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility
for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and
might not even exist.
There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be
responsible.
In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is
not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely,
when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition --
that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it: How's
that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call
a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores
of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal
newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say
about the mindset of the western world?
What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that
Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political
discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims
whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in
many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is
Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism,
just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz
Hussain -- whose lengthy
Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth
reading -- put it
______________________________________________________
Posted on July 23, 2011 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
An educated wealthy businessman with a murky military
background who hates globalization goes off and kills 91 people associated with
the ruling left-wing Labor Party, most of them at close range? And he wasn’t
killed by the tactical team when they arrested him? Hmmmmm…..
Police in Norway
are saying that the man they arrested at the Labor Party Massacre, a man
identified as Anders Behring Breivik by Norwegian media outlets, is responsible
for both attacks on Friday, the massacre on Utoya
Island and the bombing in Oslo. As the official
story develops, one has to admit that at best it’s rather odd to say the least.
The attack on the youth conference summer camp on Utoya Island
is clearly the worst of the two. The assailant, dressed as a police officer,
moved through the small island, killing young people at will with complete
impunity for an hour or so as reports of the carnage trickle out.
“The summer gatherings in Utoya for the party’s youth wing,
the Workers’ Youth League, or AUF, have been part of a vibrant political
tradition in the country since at least the 1970s, and enjoyed by many of those
now in government.” CNN
The camp itself is a tradition in the socialist leaning
Norwegian left so for many right-wing citizens, it may be a symbol of what is
wrong with their society.
“It has been a traditional camp where young people have met
and discussed politics and many, many of our leaders have participated on Utoya
for many years.
“Some of the brightest and best politicians Norway has
brought up have been a part of that island and the history of that island,
since the camps have gone back for so many years.” CNN
Very little is known about Anders Behring Breivik aside from
what certain people want you to know about him.
Early
speculation about the attacks focused on al Qaeda-like groups and Norway’s participation in NATO and the bombing
of Libya
for instance. Some even suggesting that it was “natural” to
suspect angry Muslims or “Islamists” without any evidence to support that
assumption.
As is often the case, the truth about what happened
yesterday is a bit murkier and harder to unravel than simply leaping out in
front of the pack to write that bin Laden has bombed yet another group of
innocent white people from beyond the grave.
As I wrote before, what we know about the suspected
assailant is only what others want you to know. Most of the speculation is
based on his Facebook and Twitter pages which were only started a few days
prior to Friday. Clearly either he wanted to leave behind a record for what he
was going to do or someone put those together for him in order to create just
the sort of “homegrown terrorist” they needed. Go
here to view a PDF of his Facebook page.
The focus right now is on Breivik’s extreme right-wing
fundamentalist Christian views and his nationalist tendencies (read as
“anti-globalization”). There is a photo that was on his Facebook page,
which has since been closed, of Breivik dressed in his Freemason garb. The
photo may have been photoshopped but if it was, it was still part of his
original entries on that page so it was done by either Breivik himself or
whomever created the page for him.
His Facebook page lists him as the Director
of Breivik Geofarm and when one looks that up one finds that they have
around 790 employees. The government page lists him as the sole
proprietor of the farm.
“The authenticity of the online accounts could not
immediately be verified, but government
business records list a man of the same name and age as sole director of
Breivik Geofarm.
In the records, the company says its business is the
“growing of vegetables, melons, roots and tubers” and reports that it has 790
employees.” MSNBC
This means Breivik was a wealthy businessman with an advance
degree in business administration… he was certainly not “a farmer”
Breivik also served in the military in some capacity.
“Mr Breivik had served in the Norwegian military doing
national service and had no criminal record according to reports.” the Telegraph
It’s too early to speculate as to the real cause of all of
this. Was it just a case of yet another very wealthy “lone gunman” businessman
with prior military experience going nuts and killing the socialists? Or was it
something else entirely?
Personally I don’t believe this man could have carried off
these attacks by himself. How was he able to shoot so many young people on the
island, by himself, with no real counter-terrorist training? Whoever did this
knew how to kill large numbers of people in close combat and was apparently
good at it. This is another aspect to all of this; it’s one thing to hate “the
socialists” or the immigrants and think they are wrecking your country, it’s
quite different to shoot a hundred of them at close range and step over them as
they lay dying to go shoot more. That takes a very unique kind of person with
very specific training and experience. It’s something that hate alone does not
qualify you for.
I will reserve judgement on this till more is known but at
this point the Anders Behring Breivik story seems quite fishy to me.
Killings in Norway
Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.
The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply
influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned
for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with
quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of
the Unabomber.
In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik,
who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young
people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the
acrimonious American debate over Islam.
His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as
failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer,
who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western
writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to
Western culture.
More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo
of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an
antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the
subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a
debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.
In the United
States, critics have asserted that the
intense spotlight on the threat from Islamic militants has unfairly vilified
Muslim Americans while dangerously playing down the threat of attacks from
other domestic radicals. The author of a 2009 Department of Homeland Security
report on right-wing extremism withdrawn by the department after criticism from
conservatives repeated on Sunday his claim that the department had tilted too
heavily toward the threat from Islamic militants.
The revelations about Mr. Breivik’s American influences
exploded on the blogs over the weekend, putting Mr. Spencer and other
self-described “counterjihad” activists on the defensive, as their critics
suggested that their portrayal of Islam as a threat to the West indirectly
fostered the crimes in Norway.
Mr. Spencer wrote on his Web site, jihadwatch.org, that “the blame
game” had begun, “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the
global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with
anything we have ever advocated.” He did not mention Mr. Breivik’s voluminous
quotations from his writings.
The Gates of Vienna,
a blog that ordinarily keeps up a drumbeat of anti-Islamist news and
commentary, closed its pages to comments Sunday “due to the unusual situation
in which it has recently found itself.”
Its operator, who describes himself as a Virginia consultant and uses the pseudonym
“Baron Bodissey,” wrote on the site Sunday that “at no time has any part of the
Counterjihad advocated violence.”
The name of that Web site — a reference to the siege of
Vienna in 1683 by Muslim fighters who, the blog says in its headnote, “seemed
poised to overrun Christian Europe” — was echoed in the title Mr. Breivik chose
for his manifesto: “2083: A European Declaration of Independence.” He chose
that year, the 400th anniversary of the siege, as the target for the triumph of
Christian forces in the European civil war he called for to drive out Islamic
influence.
Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on
terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the
writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the
counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam
“is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their
writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”
“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”
Dr. Sageman, who is also a forensic psychiatrist, said he
saw no overt signs of mental illness in Mr. Breivik’s writings. He said Mr.
Breivik bears some resemblance to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who also spent
years on a manifesto and carried out his mail bombings in part to gain
attention for his theories. One obvious difference, Dr. Sageman said, is that
Mr. Kaczynski was a loner who spent years in a rustic Montana cabin, while Mr. Breivik appears to
have been quite social.
They have already finished
with Christianity destruction, and now it is
Islam's turn.
a.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker