Read here about the events surrounding the horrible massacre on the Norwegian island Utøya and in Oslo —events that the mass media has kept from us.
The media is unanimous: the man is a monster like almost no other. “He had a version of reality that not a single other person shared,” his lawyer says. “No one, nowhere,” writes the German news magazine Der Spiegel. His earlier companions demonise him as a “crazy person who undertook his own brain-washing” and his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, a social democrat (!)—adds, “when I see him, I see someone far removed from everything. Far removed from every reality, every socialisation, every companionship.”
What has to happen to turn an “always helpful, calm school friend,” a “friendly and reticent colleague” into an “ice-cold killer” who, over the course of several years, had planned the blast-off of a “sixty year war” and who, within only a few hours on a Friday afternoon, detonated a bomb in the government district that killed eight people and then drove to the small summer camp island Utøya and shot 69 people there, most of them youths? Where does such a consuming hate come from, a hate that knowingly ruins his own life through such monstrous cruelty and then doesn’t even turn a merciful shot on itself at the end? How does someone manage to see Muslims as the destruction of the West and still eat every week at the Pizzeria Milano, whose owner’s name is Bilal Güclü, and still be remembered by him as “very friendly”? How does someone whose thoughts are on nothing else but the “martyr’s war” that he will soon provoke manage to act so casually normal that even Lasse Nordlie, the owner of the Cuckoo’s Nest bar doesn’t notice anything unusual? Although Nordlie used to be a profiler at the Oslo airport where, based on body language, he had to decide whose papers and luggage should be checked? Anders Behring Breivik, who “sometimes had a beer at his place, certainly never stuck out to the profiler, he says,” Der Spiegel reported.1
It seems especially absurd that this blond blue-eyed Norwegian’s worldview was so fatally similar to that of an Islamist fanatic or suicide bomber. He sees himself, according to his 1,511 page long Manifest 2083, as a “martyr” and wants to “create a world with rigid, backward morals, where women are subordinate, children can be corporally punished, and men are the God-appointed leaders—a bizarre Christian mirroring of precisely those things he criticises in the Muslims,” Der Spiegel analyses. “Morals have lost their meaning in our struggle,” Breivik writes in his manifesto. Whoever wasn’t up for martyrdom was not worthy to be a Knight Templar [which he considered himself to be]. He willingly renounced women and worldly pleasures in order to devote himself entirely to his “mission”—the War of Martyrs, who would soon be gathered together in the “heavenly Kingdom”, he wrote. Der Spiegel comments: “It sounds a lot like jihad (Holy War); all that’s missing are the 72 virgins.”
When you read about Anders Behring Breivik’s development, you get the impression that maybe the guy wasn’t all there, but he doesn’t sound illogical either. So it’s certainly possible that Breivik was just a lone, cold-blooded spree killer, who adopted a worldview for himself in the last few years that then held him captive: the worldview that the European West is fated for extinction and that it will have mutated into Eurabia in little more than a generation.
That this is not only a fantastic phobia, but is actually a possible reality, is shown by the birth rates of the European-based Muslims. To “gently conquer” Europe from within in one or two generations is actually one of the goals of radical Islamic leaders. By 2040, Sweden will be predominantly Muslim, if things continue as they are now; in Norway it will take a little longer, but the result will be the same if you believe the statistics, projections, and Islamic intentions.
That someone could come to the unfortunate conclusion that only a world-shattering act could awaken the sleeping western lands—and in this day and age only excessive violence can shock them—is, despite its monstrosity, an understandable train of thought.
So far, so not-good.
It’s only when you consult other sources of information outside of the mainstream media that you become a little suspicious. Of course wild rumours are flying about; there is a lot of speculation and fabrication. You have to be careful what you take to be true. Nevertheless, it’s not the wild hypotheses flying about that make us suspicious, but rather the informational black holes that you suddenly spot in the mass media.
Why, for example, hasn’t any paper or station reported that the summer camp on Utøya had been dealing with the Israel-Palestine problem in the days just before the massacre? Or that foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre had been on Utøya just the day before and had spoken and announced to the leftist political class of tomorrow that Norway would recognise Palestine as an independent state before the UN in September? That he was welcomed by the young authors of anti-Israel pamphlets like “Boycott Israel” or “Opphev blokkaden av Gaza” (Lift the Gaza Blockade)?
Jewish media and internet sites were certainly aware of these aspects of the Norwegian massacres—including the Israeli paper Jedijot Achronot. And New Yorker journalist Daniel Greenfield2 wrote that Gahr Støre had responded to the Anti-Israel banners with an “Anti-Israel speech to cheers from the campers” the day before the massacre. “There is something ominous about such indoctrination of hate. It is not quite on the level of the Hitler Youth, but neither is it a world apart. In the 1930’s, Germans were encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews.” Greenfield noted that there were few workers’ children at the summer camp. They were mostly the sons and daughters of bureaucrats and party leaders who were being trained to carry on the goals of the Labour Party into the next generation. He alleges that there is scarcely an Islamist terrorist group that isn’t supported by the Norwegian foreign minister Gahr Støre. “Gahr Støre had called for negotiating with Al-Shahaab in Somalia, an Al-Qaeda offshoot, he spoke with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal and called for a reconciliation with the Taliban.”
“Nor is the Workers’ Youth League call for the destruction of Israel a recent one,” Greenfield continues. “In the 70’s, the movement was already pushing for a One State Solution. The man who led the organisation then went on to become the country’s Foreign Minister, playing a key role in the Oslo Accords that turned Israel into a free-fire zone for the terrorist allies of the League and the Labour Party.”
“If Breivik’s violence and bigotry is to be condemned—shouldn’t the species of violence and bigotry at Utøya be condemned as well?” asks Greenfield provocatively and equates anti-Israeli speeches and banners on the same level as the cruel, cold-blooded murder of 69 people.
Pamela Geller, an influential Jewish New York journalist and blogger also labels Utøya an “anti-Semitic indoctrination training centre” on her website Atlas Shrugs. This title of her homepage is already interesting. Atlas Shrugs is an obvious reference to the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (actually Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, 1905-1982). According to German Wikipedia, her novel explores the “development of Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, which declares reason to be the measure of all things, egoism a virtue and a defence of strict laissez-faire Capitalism. (…) In Objectivism, egoism, ingenuity, and efficiency are the greatest virtues. Self-interested, high-producing big businesses that exemplify these virtues are, consequently, the ‘motor of the world’ and Rand plots her novel so that stopping this motor leads to the end of civilisation.” So we shouldn’t be surprised that, according to a poll by the US Library of Congress, Atlas Shrugged was the second most influential work (after the Bible) in readers’ lives. In Atlas Shrugged, insiders see a roman à clef propagandising the Illuminati’s goals. Rand is supposed to have been the lover of Philip Rothschild. The US economist and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan remarked about Atlas Shrugged: “The influence of this author is like that of Karl May on the youth in Germany in earlier times, although with a more intensive effect—also for the influential members of the so-called elite—and also later in life.”
But back to Pamela Geller. She writes: “The main activity at the Utøya Island Meeting were [sic] mock ‘Break the Israel blockade’ games. One event was Palestinian aide boats would try to break the Israel blockage. The sign [accompanying image, ed] says ‘defeat the blockade’ (opphev bloccaden—Gaza).”
This also explains why “many of the youths who survived the massacre reported that they initially thought the shooting was a simulation of the Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories by a policeman dressed as a killer. They thought that they were supposed to see the ‘atrocities of the Israeli occupation’ with their own eyes,” wrote Ulrich Sahm on the Israel-friendly website Israelnetz.com on 24 July 2011.
Breivik himself is everything but anti-Israel—something else that you won’t learn from the mainstream media, which consistently portrays him as the epitome of a racist right-wing radical. Whereby he wrote on the website of the Zionist Norwegian journalist Hans Rustad, Document.no: “We must influence other culture conservatives [sic] to take our anti-racist, pro-homosexual, pro-israeli [sic] line of thought.” He gave the reason in his manifesto: Anti-Semitism is “nonsense, as Europe’s Jews are allies in the fight against Islam.” And so, not least, he quoted anti-Muslim statements of Jews like Pamela Geller (who was one of the main opponents of the ‘Ground Zero’ mosque and who is not stingy with shocking news about Muslim activities on her website), or Robert Spencer, a Melkite Greek Orthodox religious scholar and Islam critic, who fastidiously reports on the many small battles of the “holy Islamic war” on his website jihadwatch.org.
It also didn’t take long before anti-Israel groups accused the Israeli secret service, Mossad, of the Norwegian attacks (although obviously not in the official media), including Hamas and Ufree, the European network for the support of Palestinian prisoners. The liberal Turkish paper Taraf publicised a report in which it claimed it was “very likely” that the Mossad had organised the attack. The reason: “Norway had repeatedly officially expressed the intention of being the first European land to recognise Palestinian independence.”
What would Mossad’s motivation have been? Does Norway, that little country in Europe’s far north, present some kind of threat to Israel? Is its influence so great that a domino effect would follow if Norway were to officially recognise a Palestinian state? Hardly. But what the mass media regularly conceals is the fact that some Israelis really do see Norway as an enemy in spirit. This is shown by some statements that the Israeli journalist Gilad Atzmon translated into English from the Hebrew website Rotter after the Norway attacks. In Post 21, someone let off some steam with the words: “Oslo’s criminals have paid.” Post 24 thinks, “it is stupidity and evil not to desire death for those who called for a boycott of Israel.” And we read in Post 41: “Hitler Youth members killed in the bombing of Germany were also innocent. We have a bunch of Israel-haters meeting in a country that hates Israel in a conference that endorses a boycott. So it’s not okay, not nice, really a tragedy for the families, and we condemn the act itself, but to cry about it? Come on. We Jews are not Christians. In the Jewish religion there is no obligation to love or mourn for the enemy.”
Because of its position on Israel, Norway is definitely seen as an “enemy”—at least by parts of the Israeli people. Unlike official Israel: “Your land is a symbol of peace and freedom,” the almost 88-year-old Israel state president Shimon Peres said to the Norwegian King in a telephone conversation, his office reported. “The murder of innocents has broken our hearts,” adds Peres to King Harald V. But not two months prior, on 15 May 2011 in an Israeli paper, Peres had implied that Norway was the “most anti-Semitic country of the West”.
The former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was prime minister during the secret Oslo negotiations for a peaceful middle-East settlement in 1993, is considered to be the leading “anti-Semite”. As chairman of the United Scandinavian Workers’ Parties, in 1983 Brundtland had invited Yasser Arafat to Stockholm—a diplomatic attempt that was supposed to smooth Arafat’s path in Europe. It was also Brundtland who appointed Einar Foerde, a member of the earlier socialist Left Party, as head of the national Norwegian television channel NRK. Until his retirement in 2001, Foerde exclusively filled the key positions at the channel with like-minded thinkers. And not only Norwegian television, but also the Norwegian press was significantly more critical of Israel than the media in other countries.
The now 72-year-old Brundtland, often called the “Mother of the Nation”, gave a talk on Utøya on the day of the massacre. Breivik admitted in the police investigation that he had wanted to “hit” (meaning: shoot) her, but that he unfortunately arrived too late. The paper Aftenposten reported this on the Monday after the bloodbath. When he reached the island, supposedly after a delay, Brundtland had already left.
As a country of 4.9 million people on the northern edge of Europe, Norway isn’t exactly considered a global player. 50 years ago, bitter poverty was still the norm, and according to Stern magazine it was a land of ‘pious farmers and fishermen’. For centuries, they had “learned to turn privation and hardship into national virtues of thrift and solidarity”. Then oil and gas were discovered off Norway’s coast, and it found itself catapulted into quite another reality, with the highest quality of life in the whole world. For six years in a row, Norway has placed first in the UN rankings, with full employment and no national debt. On the contrary, the state has put aside € 74,000 for the pension of every citizen, and pays anyone who has children to stay at home for a year on their full salary. No surprise then that 9 out of 10 new fathers take parental leave. Norway makes the employment of women in top positions a legal requirement. 40% of the board of directors of publicly traded companies must be women. If childcare is too expensive, the state will pay. Put simply, Norway is paradise, and it looks like it’s going to stay that way for the foreseeable future: the oil reserves are projected to start running out in the year 2023, but the government has already created an oil fund worth more than € 400 billion which increases in value with each passing year. The only problem they have is what to do with all that money. This was Norway in the summer of 2011, with Europe seemingly on the edge of collapse, the halfway functioning economies of Germany, France and Holland being bled dry to rescue the Irish, Greeks, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese, all teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and speculators threatening to bring down the Euro and deliver the EU itself a knock-out blow.
The ‘stinking rich’ Norwegians stand aloof from the chaos. From their idyllic land of gushing oil wells under the waves, and stunningly beautiful fjords above them, couldn’t they be persuaded to come to the rescue of the EU, fast taking on water? To throw it a life-line with some of those billions and billions of oil money?
Up until summer 2011, the Norwegians showed little sign of caring about Europe’s problems. And why should they? You can hardly hold it against a nation if it doesn’t fancy paying out huge sums in return for losing its freedom and independence. For a long time, the only nations knocking on the EU’s door have been those hoping to get plenty back in return for joining.