When Dovrefjell Crumbled, Part 2

We continue from Part 1 with our analysis of the "terrorist" incident in Norway and its political fallout.

When I saw Right wing blogger reveals identity yesterday in Norway Post, I knew my analysis from Part 1 was substantially correct. In Right wing blogger reveals identity:

The ultra right-wing blogger "Fjordman", much quoted by Andreas Behring Breivik who is charged with the July 22nd terrorist acts, is revealing his identity in the Friday issue of the newspaper VG.

"Fjordman" has been quoted a number of times in Breivik's "Manifest" which he published just hours before he carried out his terrorist acts on July 22nd. He said "Fjordman" was "a source of inspiration".

Notice how they refer to Fjordman as an "ultra right-wing blogger".

Now, consider this from Breivik's political idol «Fjordman» emerges from anonymity August 5, 2011 (boldface is in the original):

(VG Nett) In an exclusive interview with VG, Peder Jensen (36) sheds his alias as the right wing blogger «Fjordman», and talks about his shock at being cited as an influence by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik.

Thursday he was questioned for several hours by Norwegian police about his supposed interaction with Breivik (32).

Under the alias «Fjordman», he has been a prolific blogger on different far-right websites, and was cited extensively in Breivik's rambling manifesto.

Again, "right wing" and "far-right".

They can't just call Fjordman a blogger or a citizen-journalist; our "free press" (the propaganda arm of those in power) has to tell the reader what to think of this guy: he's "right wing". Previous conditioning lets you realize that "right wing" is bad.

Skipping down:

Police sources confirm that Jensen has been questioned as the blogger «Fjordman», and that they are certain of his identity.

- I feel it's my duty to give a statement to the police, and I wanted to do this interview because my name eventually would have emerged anyway, resulting in a media frenzy. It is also a way for me to clear my name, says Jensen.

Norwegian police confiscated his computer Thursday, and even though he was questioned as a witness, he feels that the police are looking to implicate him.

Fjordman made a big mistake.

As an anonymous blogger and citizen-journalist, he made an extremely valuable contribution in getting the truth about what was happening in Norway, Scandinavia and Europe out to the world, doing so in impeccable English to ensure the widest possible readership.

Because he was anonymous, people had to focus on what he was saying; once someone's identity is known, the focus shifts from what is being said to who is saying it, and the smears and persecution begin.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

~Oscar Wilde

But, for the same reason he wrote, he felt compelled to come forth and talk to the police; not because he had any information to add (he could have sent that anonymously), but to help his community and the cause of decency.

The result was predictable: he feels investigators are now trying to implicate him.

There is nothing Fjordman or anyone else can say or do that will clear his name; the neocommies are convinced he is guilty (guilty of opposing them!) and will do anything they can, legal or not, moral or not, to crucify him.

And for the rest of us, we already knew Fjordman was completely innocent; his denunciation of the terrorist attack was unnecessary, too, because we already knew he didn't approve of it. Read his writings, and you will know he is a decent person.

But, he has now thrown himself at the mercy of those who have no decency; of those for whom another man's decency is merely vulnerability to be exploited.

I now reproduce in its entirety a post from Gates of Vienna entitled Fjordman: My Afternoon With The Police :

The following message just came in from Fjordman, who adds that he intends to keep a low profile in the near future.

____________________

I am shocked by the hostile treatment I received at the hands of the police.

Lars Hedegaard heard my story and commented that he had never known of any witness who has been treated in this manner in any Western country, except for totalitarian societies such as the Third Reich.

My lawyer, who is experienced and has seen many tough cases before, did not expect anything like this to happen. He assumed this would be relatively easy, and even suggested that I might get by without a lawyer. I insisted on having one present just in case, which most likely helped a little bit. Things would have been even worse had that not been the case. My lawyer later said that in my case they operated at best at the very fringes of what could be considered legal.

I was never accused of doing anything criminal, obviously because I had nothing to do with the terror attacks and they know this. Yet without the slightest hint of proof of any lawbreaking, I was treated as a murder suspect.

To my total surprise I had to go to my flat, where for several hours half a dozen police officers went through all of my DVDs, searched through my old printed travel photographs from years back, searched through all of my (many) books, checked my kitchen equipment, went through all of my clothes, and confiscated a suitcase that contained nothing more than clothes and some books. They also confiscated several digital devices, including my camera and my laptop. It is quite clear that they wanted information about non-violent Islam-critical networks in Europe that they suspected might be contained in my PC, even though they denied this to me.

Please remember that the police and the Police Security Service (PST) apparently had no clue who I was until I literally knocked on their door of my own free will, even though I knew full well that I would have to give up my anonymity after doing so. I had very little information about Breivik since I have never met him, something which he himself has admitted, yet I still handed over what little information I had. I also answered their questions honestly, even though, technically speaking, I did not have to do so.

If you believe the mass media, the police were still not sure that I really was Fjordman until a couple of hours after I had turned up at the police station. As soon as they understood that this was indeed the case, they rushed through a quick decision to search my flat and confiscate my computer equipment immediately. They must have realized at this point that I had nothing at all to do with the terror attacks.

I personally suspect that this was mainly a political decision.

Fjordman, you are a good man, but you should have remained anonymous. You should have made the neocommie-controlled police develop some kind of probable cause or get some kind of warrant. Let them do an investigation. If they do an honest one, they might actually find out who really helped and motivated this guy, whether this guy was aware of any help or not.

By the way, I reproduce the above post in its entirety, not to steal any thunder from GOV, but to make sure Fjordman's story gets out.

Fjordman was acquainted with the bloggers from GOV, which was also named in the terrorist's manifesto. I believe it is just a matter of time before someone "outs" the GOV bloggers and shuts them up, whether because of this incident or for some other reason. If nothing else, the GOV bloggers must have accumulated quite a few fatwas by now for pointing out aspects of Islam that certain adherents of the Religion of Peace and their allies would wish to keep in obscurity.

The clear intent of the politically-motivated police operation in Norway is to identify and silence opponents of the ruling Labor Party and of its allies around the world.

We now consider excertps from Hatred, smears and the liberals hell-bent on bullying millions of us into silence by Melanie Phillips, August 1, 2011:

The baleful effects of the recent attacks in Norway, where Anders Breivik bombed Oslo's government district and then gunned down teenagers at a Labour party camp, murdering at least 77 people, have not been limited to that horrific carnage.

For the atrocity has produced a reaction among people on the political Left in Britain, Europe and the U.S. that is in itself shocking and terrifying.

Former Norwegian prime minister and current chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee Thorbjorn Jagland has said that, in response to the violent attacks, David Cameron and other European leaders should use a more 'cautious' approach when talking about multiculturalism.

Cameron has said multiculturalism (the doctrine that gives the values of minorities equal status to those of the majority) has failed, and has also talked about 'Islamist extremism' as a cause of terrorism.

Jagland, however, said leaders would be 'playing with fire' if they continued to use rhetoric that could be exploited by extremists such as Breivik.

This is similar to the aftermath of the OKBOMB. Bill Clinton immediately gave the cue, signalling that he hoped there was no Middle East connection; the FBI did not officially find one, but investigative reporter Jayna Davis did in her well-researched and well-documented New York Times best-seller The Third Terrorist. But, President Clinton and his neocommie Clintonites played the aftermath for political purposes.

This is also eerily similar to the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson in January, 2011, in which Judge John Roll was killed and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was very seriously wounded, along with a list of other victims killed and wounded. After this incident, there was again a push by the neocommies to limit the freedom of speech of those who would defend traditional American values by saying that such rhetoric incited violence.

Skipping down in Hatred, smears and the liberals hell-bent on bullying millions of us into silence:

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.

Shockingly, he is merely one of many who are doing so.

As soon as the atrocity happened, people on the Left saw a heaven-sent opportunity to smear mainstream conservative thinkers and writers by making a grossly distorted association between Breivik's attack and their ideas.

They claimed that anyone on 'the Right' who had spoken out against multiculturalism or Islamic extremism was complicit in the atrocity and therefore had a moral duty to stop writing about such things.

A moral duty to stop speaking the truth about Islam, and how Islam lends itself to the persecution of non-Muslims, of Muslims whose views differ from the views of those in authority, of women, of other minorities...

What you see here is the neocommies trying to play the victim card to silence their opponents and the opponents of their allies.

Skipping down:

Moreover, he also mentioned dozens of other conservative or liberal writers and thinkers. Among others, he quoted: Winston Churchill, George Orwell, Mahatma Gandhi, the Labour MP Frank Field, Tory Nicholas Soames, philosopher Roger Scruton, Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson and Swedish thriller writer Lars Hedegaard.

Why don't the headlines read that the murderer took his inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi? It would be just as true, but far less politically useful.

Continuing:

Oh, and William Shakespeare, as well as the fathers of English liberalism John Stuart Mill and John Locke.

So the fact that Hundal singled me out like this while failing to mention these others (apart from a brief reference to Mr Clarkson) was an egregious smear — which was soon circulating and building up hatred on Twitter and the internet.

Soon, others joined in the hate-fest — even across the Atlantic. In the Toronto Star, columnist Heather Mallick wrote that unlike 'almost everyone else praised by the killer', I had not said I was horrified by the atrocity in Norway. Not only that, but whereas everyone else had wept at the murder of schoolchildren, 'she [Phillips] spits'.

[snip]

As one Guardian reader commented following Milne's contemptible attack, the fact that he had deliberately blurred the distinction between reasonable political opinions with which one might disagree and the actions of a terrorist meant he was creating hysteria and polarisation.

Indeed, the result of such incitement has been a veritable tsunami of electronically-generated mob hatred.

That was the goal.

No, it is those who under the cover of accusing me of incendiary writing are themselves inciting hatred.

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.

Indeed, those who have exploited the killing of innocents in Norway to provoke such an eruption of distortion, demonisation and irrationality should disgust and alarm all decent people everywhere.

(For more background on the reactions to this incident, see The Oslo Fallout: A Review of Views Unfit to Print by Srdja Trifkovic, August 1, 2011. For more thoughts on Fjordman, see The Forced Resignation of Fjordman from August 5, 2011, written by GOV blogger Baron Bodissey, who actually knew Fjordman.)

So, the "terrorist" attack in Norway... Cui bono?

In its entirety, Labour climbs on latest poll from August 6, 2011:

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's Labour Party (AP) climbs 11.7 percentage points on Norfakta's latest poll, and now has the support of 40.4 per cent of the electorate.

The poll was made for the newspapers Nationen and Klassekampen, and was taken after the terrorist attacks on July 22nd.

The poll also shows a marked drop for the Conservatives (Høyre) and the right wing Progress Party (FrP).

Høyre is supported by 21.4 per cent of the voters, and FrP 16.2 per cent.

For the other parties the changes are minimal.

(NRK)

In Part 1 I explained how I thought the neocommies of Norway's Labor Party were working together with Islamists to pull this off. I further explained how I thought the Islamists got a neo-Nazi to actually do the work. My summary:

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

It may very well be the exact mechanics of the behind-the-scenes work is different from what I suspect, but these are the players behind this, of that I am sure.

Why? Well, answer me this:

Cui bono?

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.

Oslo: Violent Rapes Committed by "Non-Western Immigrants"

Kind of old news, from Immigrants behind most cases of aggravated sexual assault, April 16, 2009:

The Oslo Police have over the past three years investigated 41 cases of aggravated sexual assault, which resulted in rape. All of them were carried out by non-western immigrants to Norway.

The police now urge that more efforts be put into preventive measures among men with immigrant background.

The police have investigated all reported cases of aggravated sexual assault over the past three years, and have gained a clear impression of the offenders:

Most of the rapists have a Kurdish or African background, NRK reports. The cases of aggravated sexual assults all have one thing in common, namely the use of gross violence.

This does not come as news to anyone who is familiar with the work of the blogger Fjordman (do a search), who often posts at Gates of Vienna (see sidebar), among other places.

What the news article doesn't tell you is that these immigrants are Muslims. This is essentially a sexual jihad against the infidel women of the dhimmi society.

Do an internet search and see what you come up with.

Also, from No social problems can excuse such a behavior, June 8, 2010:

The riots and the burning down of a school building in Rinkeby, west Stockholm has become high politics. Today the Minister for education, Jan Björklund and minister for integration and gender equality Nyamko Sabuni paid a visit to the troubled district.

The article addresses the violence, leaving out the fact that the perpetrators are Muslim immigrants. This aspect is brought out in the comments - which, to me, is a surprise, since the comments are moderated and this aspect tends to get covered up.

Sadly, I don't see how the Scandinavian countries are going to end the violence without rising up against their dhimmi overlords in government, who seem to have solid control over the media and the electoral process. It will get worse before it gets better.

Hopefully, one of my readers has a better understanding and can offer some insights?