When Dovrefjell Crumbled, Part 1

In this post, we begin to review the situation in Norway, considering first the recent events associated with Anders Behring Breivik, the person allegedly (admittedly?) responsible for a bombing in Oslo and a shooting spree on nearby Utoya Island.

A post at Debbie Schlussel's blog entitled Karma #2: Norway Utoya Camp Was Also FATAH PLO Terrorist Camp from July 29 links to an article entitled Fatah Youth condemns Norway attacks, over 90 killed from Palestine's Ma'an News Agency that was updated on July 25; here is the text of the article:

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Fatah Youth released a statement on Saturday condemning attacks in Norway which have reportedly killed over 90 people.

"It is with consternation that we have received the dramatic news of an awful terrorist attack against a summer camp ran by our comrades of Norwegian Labor Youth 'AUF,'" the statement said.

The Fatah Youth group had taken part in the summer camp in the past on the Island of Utoya, near Oslo, where over 90 people were reportedly killed in a shooting spree on the Island and a bomb attack in Oslo on Friday, news reports said.

"Fatah Youth declares its consternation about the terror attack. There are no words to describe an attack against people that have been our comrades in our struggle for freedom and independence. Very few people have stood by our side as much as the Norwegian people, and particularly our AUF comrades."

"We know those who have been cowardly assassinated. Those are people that have stood for the human and national rights of the Palestinian people both in Europe and while visiting Palestine.

"Fatah Youth has participated for almost 15 years in the same summer camp and our youth has benefited by learning and sharing experiences on democracy and advocacy for peace and justice.

"We hope that those responsible for this criminal terror attack will be brought to justice. Such sick minds should not have a place in any society.

"As a people that has been victim of state terror for the last 64 years, the Palestinian people and particularly Fatah Youth presents its condolences to the families of those killed and sends a strong message of support to our comrades from the Norwegian AUF as well as from other sister parties that were participating in this summer camp," the statement concluded.

This camp that was attacked at Utoya was not just anti-Israeli and supportive of the "Palestinian" cause; it was actually a camp were Fatah terrorists were involved in political indoctrination with young people associated with Norway's Labor Party.

Who would attack that kind of a camp? The obvious answer is that the attacker would have to be someone who supported Israel and who presumably disagreed with Palestinian Arab terrorism.

I wonder if the obvious answer is the correct one.

We next consider an excerpt from 'Hitler would have put him on a poster': Norwegian killer had plastic surgery to look more Aryan, claims intelligence chief dated July 31, 2011:

The right-wing extremist who massacred 77 people during a twin terror attack in Norway had plastic surgery to make him look more Aryan, according to a intelligence official.

Anders Behring Breivik, 32, has the blond hair, blue eyes and strong features stereotypically associated with the group.

However, according to Janne Kristiansen, the head of Norway's intelligence agency the PST, there is no way that Breivik's look was natural.

'You do not have that Aryan look naturally in Norway,' she said.

'Hitler would have had him on posters. He has the perfect, classic Aryan face.

'He must have had a facelift,' she added in an interview with The Sunday Times.

This information fits with the reminiscences of an old schoolfriend, who has recalled that Breivik boasted of having had plastic surgery a decade ago, a time when he had befriended 'a group of people obsessed with their bodies'.

'I remember we were at a party, and he told me he had had his nose and chin operated on by a plastic surgeon in America,' the friend told the Sunday Telegraph.

Why would a right-wing terrorist who had plastic surgery to alter his looks to the point that he could have been a posterboy for the Nazis attack a camp of people who were enemies of the Jewish state?

This doesn't make any sense.

If he's a Nazi posterboy, he should have been there participating or perhaps even teaching. The Fatah/Labor Party/Hitler Youth types at that camp should have been friends of his.

We next consider a passage found in Killer's Manifesto: The Politics Behind the Norway Slaughter by William Boston, from July 24, 2011:

The document, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, is something of a template for right-wing terrorism, a rambling manifesto that at times rails at "cultural Marxists" and "multiculturalism" and blames them for the destruction of Western culture. Elsewhere he offers detailed instructions on Web-based self-publishing, comments on his TV habits and provides tips for building a successful terrorist cell. With the exception of some highly personal descriptions of growing up and his pain over the divorce of his parents, the document is eerily reminiscent of the jihadist instruction manuals that have been widely distributed over the Internet since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"It is a complete mirroring of al-Qaeda, a cut-and-paste image of a jihadist manifesto," Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College, tells TIME.com.

Why did a right-wing anti-Muslim terrorist publish a manifesto that "is eerily reminiscent of the jihadist instruction manuals that have been widely distributed over the Internet since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks?"

From Norway gunman in mass murders wants to appear in court in uniform, July 25, 2011:

Mr. Breivik laid out his extreme nationalist philosophy as well as his attack methods in a 1,500-page manifesto. It also describes how he bought armor, guns, tons of fertilizer and other bomb components, stashed caches of weapons and wiping his computer hard drive - all while evading police suspicion and being nice to his neighbors.

Why take the security precaution of wiping the computer hard drive, if you then email a manifesto to 1003 recipients? What was he hiding by wiping the hard drive? He has hinted at other terrorist cells in existence. Was he protecting their identity? But, then, why allow himself to be captured? Why not escape, or perhaps go down fighting? In captivity, any information that he had on his hard drive he could conceivably divulge, or at least point investigators in its direction. The only thing to be gained by wiping the hard drive but allowing himself to be taken alive would be to slow investigators down; but, if the tide of history is on his side, that wouldn't make much difference, would it?

We next consider excerpts from Communist Influence in the Mideast Uprisings by Christian Gomez, March 24, 2011:

In an interview with the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, on July 4, 1925, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was asked if he thought that the revolutionary turmoil in China, India, Persia, Egypt, and other Eastern countries was a sign that the Western powers had dug themselves graves in the East and would end up being buried there.

"Yes, I do," Stalin answered, before going on to assert that these countries of Asia and the Middle East constitute a rear threat that will bring about a "revolutionary crisis in the West." The West will be "attacked on two sides — in the rear as well as in front," he said, and "will be forced to admit that it is doomed."

The West is doomed... where else have we heard this rhetoric?

It's not from the Nazis; they believed the East was doomed, and wanted to attack eastward to gain living space for Aryans.

But, Islamic terrorists hate nearly all things Western; there is even a terrorist group in Nigeria that takes its name from such hatred.

A comment from Karma #2: Norway Utoya Camp Was Also FATAH PLO Terrorist Camp can be very enlightening:

@ Motives

I doubt that you are RIGHT. I am German and the Anger towards Islam grows from Day to Day IN EUROPE.
France and the Netherlands are already Black, England is lost.

Leftist professors, in lock-step with Leftist politicians
are ignoring the situation.

Time for a Change and Change will Come, mark my words.

Continuing with Communist Influence in the Mideast Uprisings:

In the decades that followed, Stalin and his Kremlin successors did their best to insure that the Middle East would indeed become the graveyard that would doom the United States and the non-communist countries of the West. An army of Soviet agents, advisors, agitators, propagandists, and terrorist trainers were dispatched throughout the Middle East to set it aflame. Since 1990 and the apparent collapse of communism, it has become fashionable to consider concerns of a continuing Marxist-Leninist threat in the region passé, a relic of the "Cold War mentality." After all, communist ideology and organization have been supplanted by Islamist ideology and organization, right?

But did the elaborate networks established throughout the Middle East during the Soviet era disappear? Or do the dire words spoken by Stalin in 1925 also bespeak a relevance to the recent events that are roiling the Arab states of the Mediterranean from Rabat in Morocco to the Suez Canal in Egypt, to Amman in Jordan, and along the Arabian peninsula from Yemen to Oman and Bahrain?

Commentators on both the Left and Right, from Chris Matthews at MSNBC to William Kristol at the Weekly Standard, have all taken jabs at Glenn Beck and Art Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society, for challenging the conventional wisdom and daring to point out to the oblivious what the mainstream media is still either ignorant of or just unwilling to acknowledge — that these revolutions demonstrate an unmistakable Islamo-communist connection.

The article goes on to outline connections between communist subversives and Islamic extremists, mainly the Muslim Brotherhood; farther down, we come to this:

A Bit Player to Begin With

Sorting through the available evidence, it would appear that the Brotherhood played only a secondary role in Egypt's recent turmoil, involving itself only when it realized that it could capitalize on the turn of events and benefit politically from them.

Other than the Brotherhood, the only group with the organizational skill and capacity that could stage such demonstrations is the Communist Party of Egypt (CPE), a criminal organization with a notorious pedigree.

One of the founding leaders of the CPE in 1942 was Henri Curiel, an Egyptian of Italian ancestry and a Soviet agent who would decades later become one of the KGB's principal coordinators of terrorism in Europe. Expelled from Egypt in 1950 for his communist activities, Curiel settled in France and set up a KGB network that funneled money, arms, and documents to such left-wing transnational terror groups as the German Baader-Meinhoff Gang, the Basque ETA, the Japanese Red Army, and the Uruguayan Tupamaros.

Among Curiel's many other claims to infamy is his KGB role in helping manage Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, the spokesman for Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris and, following the Islamic Revolution, the Ayatollah's Foreign Minister in Tehran. Curiel's tie to the Islamic Revolution and governing regime in Iran gives further credence to the connection between radical Islam and communism.

An article in Socialist Review of February 2009 notes:

Many regarded and still regard Khomeini as a "fundamentalist." This isn't so.... Khomeini fashioned a radical reinterpretation of Shia Islam, under influence from the popular Shia theologian Ali Shariati who had attempted to incorporate the ideas of Frantz Fanon and Karl Marx into Islam.

The CPE's longstanding ties with Islamists can be observed throughout its history and in its current coordination with the Brotherhood, as admitted by CPE spokesman Salah Adly. The role of the CPE in the events in Egypt is revealed in the communist website "21stcenturymanifesto," which admits: "The Egyptian Communist Party is deeply involved in the current struggle against the continuation of the Mubarak dynasty."

According to this analysis, it was neocommunists, the remnants of Soviet subversion going back almost a century, the heirs to Marxist agitation, who toppled Egypt's Mubarak; the Muslim Brotherhood hopped on the bandwagon, and undoubtedly hopes to hijack the revolution.

This analysis is consistent with what I have heard from other sources.

It would make sense that this is what is going on in Libya, too; when he supported terrorism, Gaddafi Khadaffy whatever was useful to the neocommies; but when, in the wake of 9/11, he decided that supporting terrorism might just earn him a place among the Axis of Evil (especially considering the A. Q. Khan network had trafficked Chinese nuclear weapons designs to him), suddenly terrorism went out of style. As Gadhafi whatever moved away from terrorism, he was no longer useful to the neocommies, so they targeted him with their Arab Spring revolutionary zeal.

This is why all the pundits can say that not everyone in the revolutionary movement there (and elsewhere) is an Islamic extremist, even though we know Islamic extremists are trying to leverage this wave of revolutions.

And make no mistake about it: an alliance between neocommies (the heirs to those who supported every kind of terrorism until the Soviet Union fell) and Islamic extremists will turn the Arab Spring into a Hazy Shade of Winter.

But, what does this mean for Norway?

Let's consider the aftermath of this terrorist event. Anyone following the news knows what's going on, but we can review an excerpt from Political Opportunism Follows Norway Tragedy by Alex Newman, dated July 25, 2011 (please see the original for numerous links which I did not reproduce):

Libertarians, conservatives, neo-Nazis, nationalists, racist groups, Masons, Muslims, Zionists, neo-cons, collectivists, anti-immigration activists — every group with the slightest connection to ideas even remotely along the lines of the killer's has issued statements. As if "ideas" could somehow be responsible for the rampage.

The reason for the frightened frenzy, however, is simple. Despite calls for calm, mourning, and rationality, a sizable segment of the media and political establishment began manipulating the tragedy almost instantly, seeking to score points for their pet causes or against their perceived political opponents.

The cries have almost become hysterical — particularly vicious against anyone perceived to be anti-Muslim, anti-"multiculturalism," or anti-immigration. And the political blame game is still growing.

"Right-wing extremists" should not be allowed to have gun licenses, suggested a Norwegian academic in one of the nation's big newspapers. Despite the fact that Norway has extraordinarily strict gun control, anti-gun zealots around the world are also exploiting the tragedy. "The staggering toll of young lives taken by a gunman at the Utoya youth camp reminds us all, once again, that guns are the enablers of mass killers," the U.S.-based Brady Campaign said in statement. In Australia and other nations, activists were on the attack as well.

Calls for more "hate crimes" prosecutions and tighter policing of the Internet have also exploded, even though in much of Europe broad swaths of political discourse have already been criminalized. Some countries, such as Finland, have just announced that they would be scrutinizing the web more closely.

Editorials urging a Europe-wide "crackdown" on "right-wing extremism" have appeared, too. They went hand-in-hand with the announcement that the European Union’s police agency would be creating a new taskforce to focus on "non-Islamic extremism" in Northern Europe.

In the United Kingdom, anti-immigration activists are under extraordinary pressure as authorities investigate potential links between the Norwegian terrorist and groups like the English Defence League (EDL). Pressure groups are calling for the EDL to be classified as an "extremist" organization and for a march it was planning to be prohibited.

Across Europe, a host of political parties, ranging from mainstream Christian Democrats to smaller nationalist parties, are also under intense fire. The media has been waging an unprecedented campaign to demonize them. Incredibly, politicians such as Geert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party are even being partly blamed for the atrocity by some of the more extreme commentators. "I would say Wilders is not legally guilty," historian Dirk-Jan van Baar was quoted as saying in Dutch state media. "But as a politician he must be perfectly aware that there is such a thing as political responsibility."

This is occurring despite the fact that many of these groups, these political parties, these organizations have tried to keep those who call for violence and unlawful activities out of their ranks. Back to an excerpt from 'Hitler would have put him on a poster': Norwegian killer had plastic surgery to look more Aryan, claims intelligence chief:

Breivik's links with the far-right English Defence League have also become clearer, as it emerged that he was a member of the Norwegian Defence League, an offshoot of the British group.

Lena Andreassen, a former leader of the NDL, confirmed that Breivik had been a member of the group, which is led by British football hooligans, but said: 'I kicked him out because he had extremist views.'

Any group that has a concern about the connections between Islam and terrorism, or that has questions about Islamic immigration, or that is against the neocommie agenda... no matter how peaceful, no matter how mainstream, no matter the group's efforts to promote lawful, peaceful action and keep violent extremists out... they're all now being targeted as suspected terrorists, while terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Fatah are now more than ever somehow the victims.

How did this get spun like this?

From ANALYSIS: Muslim Brotherhood Positions On Terrorism- Denial, Deception, Defense, And Obstruction, January 20, 2008 (I have reproduced two links found in the excerpt; both are pertinent, but we will look at the second):

A review of almost twenty years of statements and documents produced by a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organization makes it possible to understand the public approach of the Brotherhood toward terrorism. The analysis reveals that it is almost always possible to parse Brotherhood positions on terrorism into one of four conceptual categories, each of which follows in a logical progression:

1. DENIAL- Since the Brotherhood is pursuing Islamization and eventually Shariah (Islamic Law), it is necessary at all costs to deny that Islam as a religion has any connection to violence or terrorism. Of course, the Brotherhood represents Islamism as opposed to Islam in this regard but since the general audience does not understand that distinction, it is Islam which is the Brotherhood reference. They cannot afford to fail in this denial and the denial strategy is usually pursued through sophistry. That is, the Brotherhood claims that Islam is unfairly associated with terrorism while Christianity, Judaism, and other religions are not (e.g. Abortion bombers are not called Christian Terrorists) and/or that other religious terrorism is just as dangerous as Islamic terrorism. The Brotherhood may be winning this battle (see here.)

The second link is to Government renames Islamic terrorism as 'anti-Islamic activity' to woo Muslims, from January 17, 2008:

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

In her first major speech on radicalisation, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase "anti-Islamic".

In one passage she said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.

"Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic".

Newspeak: war is peace, freedom is slavery, and Islamic terrorism is anti-Islamic... and how much more anti-Islamic can you get than an attack on the people who support Palestinian Islamic terrorists?

Skipping down in ANALYSIS: Muslim Brotherhood Positions On Terrorism- Denial, Deception, Defense, And Obstruction (I fixed two typos):

3. DEFENSE

[snip]

Given the sensitivity in the West towards terrorism at home, the Brotherhood has a far more difficult job explaining Al Qaeda terrorism which it does by suggesting that while nothing "justifies" such terrorism, Al Qaeda actions spring from justified anger at U.S. foreign policy. This strategy provides a natural interface for the Brotherhood with the political far-left and, in Europe, the Brotherhood has been successful in forging such alliances.

The link in the quote then further details Muslim Brotherhood ties to the UK's neocommies.

Finally:

4. OBSTRUCTION- Having explained the violence of Islamist groups as a response to legitimate grievances, the Brotherhood is free to obstruct counter-terror efforts. One portion of its efforts is devoted to protecting its charities (e.g. Holy Land) and associated infrastructure which help to support Hamas and other Palestinian terrorism. The second part of the effort lies in hindering wider U.S counter-terror policies which it does by providing inaccurate analysis, positing plots and conspiracies about a "war on Islam" and opposing almost every counter-terror initiative undertaken by the government, suggesting instead that the correct response to terrorism is to change U.S. foreign policy, the ultimate goal of the obstruction. Again, the natural ally is the far-left and the Brotherhood has been successful in the U.S and forming such alliances with respect to counterterrorism policy.

And this brings us full circle.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Hazy Shade of Winter, Part 4, Palestinian terrorists routinely sacrifice Palestinian children to make propaganda. How much more so will Islamic terrorists sacrifice young infidels to make propaganda?

Anders Behring Breivik was a "lilly white". Jihadists probably helped him prepare his manifesto; his hard drive was wiped, probably to cover his connections to Islamic terrorists, such as Fatah and Hamas, and to the Muslim Brotherhood, which wages the ideological jihad and provides cover for the terrorists.

And, the attack has had the desired effects:

1) Denial: It is not just people associated with Islam who commit terrorism, but Muslims and Muslim sympathizers are themselves targets.

2) Defense: Islamic terrorism is now more understandable given that those who support Islamic terrorists are targets of right-wing terrorism.

3) Obstruction: Counterterror efforts need to focus not on Islamic groups, but on those political organizations that oppose Islamic immigration, socialism, and anything else that destroys the fabric of their nation.

This operation was conducted by a neo-Nazi/Islamist alliance.

The cost for this tremendous political and propaganda victory was a few dozen young people who were training to be neocommie operatives and allies (useful dupes) of the Islamic terrorist groups.

But, they will be easily replaced by the wave of recruits that will undoubtedly step up to take their place.

Meanwhile, the Islamists and neo-Nazis work together to take over Norway, and will presumably do so within a couple of decades - by which time, Anders Behring Breivik will be released from prison and be hailed as a hero.

Alliances between Nazi-types and Islamists work well, but between these two groups and the communists, the alliances always break down in a bloodbath.

So, these neocommie kids that were killed... well, when someday they realized how they had been duped into supporting their own destruction by an Islamist/neo-Nazi alliance, they would have been very upset. And, with all that political agitation training they had as kids, they could have severely disrupted the Islamic Republic of Norway....

Better to grease 'em now for a political and propaganda victory. ;)

Hitler and Stalin would have both been very proud.