The Spinning Of The Norwegian Massacre

On Tuesday, I read a New York Times online report about a press conference held by Geir Lippestad, the defense lawyer for admitted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. I found one of Lippestad's statements of interest, and saved it for future reference. Little did I know it would disappear from the news website.

The statement was:

"Asked if the rampage was aimed at the Labor Party or at Muslim immigrants, Mr. Lippestad said: 'This was an attack on the Labor Party.'"

The lawyer's statement is the first credible assessment of motive, and as such it is a significant piece of the story. So why did The New York Times cut it from the final version of the story online and in Wednesday's newspaper?

The answer, I think, has much to do with how Lippestad's opinion fails to accelerate the rush of Times insta-spin, and could even slow what looks like a swift-moving drive to limit free speech about Islamization in the West.

The "updated" Times report that omits Lippestad's statement now features comments from Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister. Sure, Store's comments are significant, but why they obliterated the defense lawyer's statement, I don't know. But I can guess.

Lippestad believes his client was attacking the Labor Party, not Muslim immigrants. The final version, minus Lippestad's comment, reports on an official, post-attack event: the foreign minister's visit to the World Islamic Mission, a large Oslo mosque, "to express solidarity," as the Times explains, with Norwegian Muslims. Over the weekend, Store visited a church as well, but the Times doesn't mention that. The overall patina to the mosque event then, certainly minus Lippestad's assessment, becomes one of Muslim aggrievement -- an artificial creation given that the majority of Breivik's victims are most likely non-Muslim. Such aggrievement, however, fits the Times' anti-anti-jihad narrative to date, also dovetailing with machinations on the Left.

We may assume Norway's Labor Party, like all parties on the European Left, draws votes from a majority of Norway's Muslims for its support of Islamic immigration and the cultural, legal and financial accommodations that follow. Indeed, it's the resulting pattern of Islamization across Europe that drove what has been absurdly glorified as Breivik's 1,500-page "manifesto." After I checked out the nine times my own name appears -- all in cut-and-pasted essays by the Norwegian blogger Fjordman -- I learned via counterterrorism expert Jarrett Brachman that the "manifesto" is partly plagiarized from the Unabomber. Jawa Report has now identified multiple other plagiarized sources throughout the first 350 pages (and counting). This means the myth of the "manifesto" as some magnum opus of counter-jihad written by the killer over many years is a phony. Still, I'll wager it's pure Breivik where the "manifesto" notes his fave TV shows, from "Vampire Diaries" to "Dexter."

"Dexter" is about a police forensics expert/serial killer. "Quite hilarious," wrote Breivik, who killed Labor Party campers wearing a police uniform.

But watch such tripe become a catalyst for a clampdown. The Times reports:

"While many in Norway do not want Mr. Breivik's actions to affect politics here, Mr. Store said that was inevitable, too. Politics, once the mourning period passed, was the way to deal with the issues raised by the killings, he said.

"'What kind of statements and actions can lead to this?' he said. 'How can we have an inclusiveness that brings all views inside the camp of democracy while drawing lines in the sand about incitement and hatred?'"

Uh-oh. I know what "statements" the foreign minister means -- and it's not the saying of Muhammad, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Store means the histories, analysis and reportage related to Islam copied into the phony "manifesto." These, in the spin that Lippestad's assessment doesn't quite match, "led" to the massacre -- not the madness or evil of a drugged-up killer.

Forgive my cynicism, but I don't see how else to interpret the omission of highly relevant news, the projection of Muslim victimization, and the apparent elevation of a criminal lunatic's pseudo-thesis to a means to silence "politically incorrect" critiques of Islam. Which is in itself a kind of tragedy. The cynics and manipulators, eager for political advantage, fail to see the attack for what it was: a shattering blow to all of civilized society.

Fear of being called racist

I can't understand why some of the people who posted above should even be concerned about being called racists or anti-PC. Wasn't it in Sweden that an "Imam" put his "nihil obstat" on the rape of Swedish women by calling them whores who deserved to be raped? If this isn't racism I don't know what is. We've fallen for the dogma that the word "racist" is a word that may be applied only to Caucasians.

IN Philadelphia a "Black Panther" (an insult to the feline community) stood on South Street (a kind of 'trendy" area in Philly and called passing White women whores and advising other Blacks that they only way they'll be free is by "killing the crackers and killing their little babies". This demonic bastard was one of the two who stood outside a polling place and threatened potential White voters on the Presidential election day.

The US Attorney General Eric Holder decided that he would not prosecute the "Panthers" for voter intimidation and apparently it was OK for a Black to exhort other Blacks to kill White people.

We're also experiencing an epidemic of Black teenage mob attacks against White people in cities and towns all over the US. There were almost no reports of the victims trying to defend themselves. We've been so indoctrinated with PC that we're afraid to fight back because of the fear of being labeled. The White male is a mere shadow of his former self. He's lost his "huevos" and has no desire to rediscover them. He won't even defend his women. Of course Blacks are violent and volatile with absolutely no impulse control and will attack for no apparent reason and that makes them fearsome. Most victims feel that it's better to take a full force punch to the face, to fall and then be repeatedly kicked in head than to risk being killed. That was what the poor young man who was beaten and kicked to death on the Philadelphia subway platform must have been thinking.

What happened to the White Europeans and Americans who defeated the Nazis? 

We've got to throw off the mantle of PC and begin to fight back. Stop feeding the diversity crocodile because he's going to eat you whenever he wants.


Political Correctness

You said:


"He's lost his "huevos" and has no desire to rediscover them."


"huevos" means eggs


Did you mean "Cojones" meaning balls?


We need not have a race war in order to survive, simply again enforce our existing laws. And a step past that it is TIME to DownSize DC! Remove the unnessary and troublesome shackles on the nation. It must happen for a recovery to ever take place. (a recovery that is moral, economic and cultural)


Texas Fossil


If I may interfere with your little discussion (or should I write dispute) with Marcfrans, I don’t believe there is evidence that shows that the treatment in Guantanamo   did “create” more terrorists. Nor do I think a harsh treatment of Anders would result in more violence from the extreme right. I think Marcfrans has a point there. But then he is talking about the consequences in the short run, ignoring those in the long. In the long run, walking the thin divide between “harsh treatment” and “torture”, is extremely dangerous and unwise. There are some exceptions of course. If somebody has put a bomb somewhere that is about to go off, I think you’re in titled to do what ever you want to get the information out of him to prevent the massacre.  But harsh treatment as deterrence is absolutely unwise. It erodes the fundamentals of the civilization we’re defending. It causes blurring of the moral standards we’re fighting for in the first place.     

A little advice concerning Marcfrans. Don’t get too irritated because of his stile. If you can ignore the slightly insulting parts you will find that the content is mostly worth reading. He is the one who made me come to this website in the first place. He is one of the few that comes with real arguments that might shed a new light, rather than the endless repeating dogmas of most of the other contributors.         

more leftist disinformation


Where on earth do you get this rubbish from??
NO one has ever been waterboarded at Gitmo, NONE of the military guards there has ever shot at any prisoners. Despite what the leftist international red cross and other leftist humanitarian agencies say the prisoners are treated better there than in any 3rd world prison and most probably then in any EU prison. I served there for 2 years in the State Dept. under GWB and know many colleagues who have served there before and after me for first hand information rather than the leftist disinformation society where you apparently get your disinformation.

confused and unclear

@ coddeau

Could you please clarify your comment, or otherwise be silent.  Who do you disagree with and what do you disagree about? 

If you disagree with the author of the article, Ms West, what kind of "behaviour" are you referring to?

If your disagreement is with 'Antibureaucratic', could you please make an effort to answer the following simple questions:

- How could 'harsh treatment' of terrorists undermine...."the belief in a civilised democractic society"...?  Your assertion does not make any sense.  It is precisely the lack of harsh treatment of terrorists that undermines that "belief".    It is hard to "belief" in any democratic society that is either (a) incapable of defending itself effectively against terrorists or (b) that treats terrorism 'lightly'. 

- How could harsh treatment of terrorists "push" marginalised people over the edge?  Your claim is absurd.  A 'domestic terrorist', like Breivik, does NOT engage in terrorism because foreign terrorists might be treated harshly by a 'democracy'. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true.  And a "marginalised" person is not more likely to engage in senseless terrorism because he can expect harsh treatment. 

So it would seem that you are simply parroting pc-dogmas.    

Treatment of a Terrorist

I believe in Norway they are proposing a maximum of 21 years sentence for this misguided monster. I believe he has admitted to having conspired with others. I believe he should be treated as a terrorist, and sent to Guantanamo Bay for the full treatment - waterboarding etc etc. I would like to see how he feels if soldiers occassionally feel the urge to take potshots at his feet or above his head (oops, one might miss and shoot his little toe off). Does this sound harsh? I don't care.

The Truth, and how to twist it

A lot of things are very good in Norway, and a few very important things are so bad that they should scare you thoroghly.  

The madman's actions has set back our struggle to be able to adress migration problems without being labeld nazi or racist.  The push we had on sharia elements being enforced in municipalities are now basically labelled 'antiproductive'.  We're appoaching the former East German mode of operation :  "If you speak on the internet not in accordance with what we deem decent you are sick".

Well, the issues are the same.  They don't have to be labelled Islamic.  If someone wants to supress women that's against most laws in Europe.  Aint'it?  Same goes for freedom to whom you want to marry , or whom you want to make love with.

By going after the same suspects we have to let the authorities find out for themselves that the perpetrators mostly come from the far and near east, or Northern Africa, and t...  Let it be.

The Truth, and how to twist it


"The Truth" is a concept that the left can never allow.  The light of truth causes those cockroaches to scurry for the darkness.  It is like what happens to a vampire in an old Dracula movie, the daylight causes them to disentigrate.

The left creates nothing, only subjects, confiscates and destroys things.  The worst thing they destroy is the human will.  Once in power the left has a history of destroying humans (killing them in the millions).


time to shut up.

Listen Mrs. West, Why the omission of something obvious to everybody _the fact that it was an attack against the labor party_ is such a big deal to you, I don't understand. But you're making exact the same mistake all you people of the right make. You're missing the opportunity to shut up. People killed over there were people of the left, that have been killed because some lunatic actually believed the conspiracy theories websites like this and columnists like you are spreading. Especially essays like this that are looking for paranoid “bigger pictures” behind a simple review change of some article in a newspaper in America, made him think he should act and start killing those enemies of the superior western culture. You probably see this massacre as a kind of collateral damage to an essential war. So be it. But real soldiers of honor try to limit collateral damage as much as possible, and they do recognize and regret the damage. Some however, like you, try to blame it on something else. That is of course better then the loads of rightist cowards that try to blame it on those that have been killed.  

Yours sincerly,

Peter Vanderheyden


@ vanderheyden peter

Who the f..k are you to tell people to shut up?

That's all you ever wanted, do away with freedom of speech. The first major decision of Hitler was to burn the books and to shut up people, you are in good company.

You are angry because some lunatic killed 93 people, I am angry too, like I am extremely angry that our "civilized" left wing politicians kill every day innocent Arabs in Libya, innocent moslims. It makes me extremely angry that none of the do-gooders from the left and that none of our parliamentarians find anything wrong with killing daily innocent muslims, which they even pretend to protect.

I didn't hear you saying anything yet about this mass murder going on since  months and propagated and supported by our "civilzed, decent" politicians.The selective finger pointing and the selective qualifications of murder are a very good indication of the double morals of our "political leaders".

You want to shake up our immoral society, start with our political mass murderers and consider individual lunatics exactly what they are: lunatics.

If our political "decent leaders" can get away with mass murder you shouldn't be surprised that a lunatic individual thinks it's allowed to kill people.


So it's our leaders fault isn't it? Everything will do, as long as it is not yours. How you can rime your support for the Libyan dictator with the conservatives claim of "defenders of freedom" beats me, but it's not really important. The many obvious an sterling contradictions in the conservative minds seem to pass unnoticed, overshadowed as they are by the omni-present rage against those that do not agree with your idols and mantras.

What is real and what is illusion.

Some time ago I became aware of Brussels Journal via a link on a U.S. forum. Although perspective in the U.S. is different there are some similarities.  This is my first comment here.

The accuracy of the coverage of this horrible mass murder in the general press has been shallow. It is a product I suppose of our times, independent of whether it is in the U.S. or Europe.

There is evidence that suggests that the web self-information of Breivik was edited just prior to the killings. Was this to project a false motive for the murders?

His actions do not support his description in the press as a Conservative Christian.  Unfortunately once the label is applied by the press, it will not be reversed, whether or not it is accurate.  That is a bias of most print media reporting.

There is a growing link between those on the "left" and Islamist.  Not because of common perspective, but because both rely on deception and supression to gain and maintain power.  Both are enemies of freedom and open societies.

"Left" and "Right" labels mean different things in Europe vs the U.S.  This is not new.

I respect honest discussion, free speech, open accountable government, the value of minimal government and maximization of freedom of individual action and initiative.  A society based on those values can only happen among a moral population. Morality does not happen in a vacuum it is cemented by common religious beliefs.  That is why multi-culturalism fails.  This does not mean that all citizens must have the same religious beliefs, but they must have a shared core of values.  Those values do not exist in all cultures.  That is why illegal immigration is such a big problem here in the U.S.

Thanks for the article.



"There is a growing link

"There is a growing link between those on the "left" and Islamist.  Not because of common perspective, but because both rely on deception and supression to gain and maintain power.  Both are enemies of freedom and open societies."


I think you're absolutely right.  Sosialism and Islam promises has so far produced similar results:  Equal misery and poverty for all. Capitalism, however, made some 30% affluent and some 15% poor.

In sch a capitalist society it would nt be too hard to impoce a plicy of 'rational politics and protection of the poor'.

there is a growing link

We see the same problems in the U.S.  We have no where near the number of Islamic residents in this country that you do.  And the lefties are concentrated in the cities and in some old manufacturing regions.

I live in the middle of 'the Big Nothing" in a town of 600 people.  My family has lived here since 1886.  In Texas much longer.

"Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" ~Thomas Paine

@ vanderheyden peter

As usual a lot of drivel without one single concrete element.

Basically I can conclude that you agree with the murder of muslim innocents then?