Authorities Claim 'Obvious Link' Between Munich Attacker and Norway Massacre's Anders Breivik (VIDEO)

Okay, right.

The leftist media's got its angle, which will work perfectly to cover-up the growing jihadist threat now terrorizing Europe.

Germany's going to be ground zero of the coming apocalyptic jihad.

At the Telegraph U.K., "Munich shooting: Teenage killer Ali Sonboly 'inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik' and 'used Facebook offer of free McDonald's food to lure victims'."



And at the BBC, "Munich gunman 'obsessed with mass shootings'":

The 18-year-old gunman who killed nine people in Munich was obsessed with mass shootings but had no known links to the Islamic State group, German police say.

Written material on such attacks was found in his room. Munich's police chief spoke of links to the massacre by Norway's Anders Behring Breivik.

The gunman, who had dual German-Iranian nationality, later killed himself.

His name has not been officially released but he is being named locally as David Ali Sonboly.
He has also been referred to as Ali David Sonboly, or David S.

Ah, "David S."

Convenient that.

Indeed, apparently the BBC completely dropped the Islamic given name "Ali" in its initial reporting, all the better to turn this Iranian Muslim into the next Anders Breivik wannabe.

See Raheem Kassam, at Breitbart London:

BBC Scrubs 'Ali' From Munich Killer's Name On TV, In Articles, AND On Social Media https://t.co/GEj73KjxeB

— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) July 23, 2016

BBC 'Fixes' #Munich Killer Article Following Breitbart Expose Of Muslim Name Cover Up https://t.co/TStfw62R4u

— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) July 23, 2016

Anders Behring Breivik Gets Maximum Sentence in Norway Mass Murder Trial

At the New York Times, "Norway Killer Is Ruled Sane and Given 21 Years in Prison."

Only 21 years. And no death penalty in Norway?

That dude deserves it. Look at him smirking at the clip.

Wade Michael Page Was Neo-Nazi White Supremacist, Not Conservative

Following up from my earlier entries, "London's Daily Mail Features Wade Michael Page Pictured Before Huge Nazi Banner in Write-Up on Oak Creek Massacre," and "The Oak Creek Massacre and Political Ideologies."

I want to reiterate the point that the slain suspect Michael Wade Page was not a conservative, he was a Nazi. I think the problem people have is whether or not fascist or Nazi ideologies can be placed at the far-right of the political continuum. I mentioned Bob Belvedere's post, for example, "Sikh Shooting: Don’t Buy The Leftist Lies." And linked there is William Jacobson, who writes:

Needless to say, the MSM and left-blogosphere have concluded the shooter was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi based on tattoos and being a former member of what they describe as a “skinhead” band — which they then obscenely generalize to be “right-wing,” a way of trying to link him to the political right. This is the age-old tactic. If Page was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/skinhead, then he stood against everything the political right stands for.

That's not a problem, per se, to locate Page on the "far-right." Conservatives routinely use the term "far-left" in referring to hardcore progressive radicals and neo-communists. The left-right ideological spectrum has been used that way for over 200 years, since the French National Assembly --- after the toppling of the Ancien Régime --- arrayed political factions from the radicals (on the left) to the reactionaries (on the right). While folks can question that seating arrangement as arbitrary and historically isolated (time-bound), nevertheless since then talk of modern political ideology has employed that left-right axis.

It's way too simplistic, of course. [This chart below is at Wikipedia's "political spectrum" page.] This chart below is at The Liberty Papers. This is just one example of how ideology is complicated by situating ideological adherents according to their relationship to political freedom. There are different examples we could use, although for simplification this graphic may serve for basic discussion, even though the placement of Adolf Hitler is too far to the left (since government did not own the means of production in Nazi Germany). The best chart I've used is found in Patrick O'Neil's, Essentials of Comparative Politics, which uses this basic graphic but plugs in ideological labels, such as "socialist" and "fascist" into the template. [This section is updated with the strike through indicating the revision.]

Another complicating factor in analysis is an ideology's orientation toward race and racial identity. Both Marxian socialism and Nazi millenarianism emphasize cleansing aspects to the social order. Marx was Jewish but despised religion as the "opiate of the people," and he has often been cited as one of the founders of Europe's historical anti-Semitism. But Italy's fascists, while originating in leftist socialist-labor circles, later specifically identified Marxian socialists as the political enemy. As the Interwar Period wore on, Mussolini's brand of fascism became increasingly identified with Hitler's Germany. The key difference, however, was that the Nazis' fundamental orientation was toward preserving the purity of the Medieval German "volk," which was idealized as the perfect "Aryan" race, and thus the establishment of the Nazi Third Reich would restore a master race of pure-bred Germans to the center of Europe.

The Soviet Union, however, especially it its pre-Stalinist development, was in principle committed to ethnic assimilation under the banner of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Political scientist Gail Lapidus discussed this in a 1989 ariticle in Foreign Affairs, "Gorbachev's Nationalities Problem":

The "Leninist compromise" created a federal system that granted political-administrative recognition and the symbols of nationhood to a number of national groups (whose historical homelands now became nominally sovereign republics within the U.S.S.R.) and committed itself to the development of their national languages and cultures. At the same time, it was built around a highly centralized and increasingly authoritarian party organization imbued with a radically internationalist ideology.

A fundamental tension was thus built into the Soviet system from its very origins: the federal structure offered an organizational framework and political legitimacy for the protection and advancement of the interests of national groups, but at the same time Soviet ideology anticipated the ultimate dissolution of national attachments and loyalties and sought the creation of an integrated political and economic community based on universal Soviet citizenship. What balance to strike between these two orientations has remained an enduring dilemma in Soviet politics.

The Stalin era was marked by a dramatic shift toward greater centralization, cultural Russification and the repression of non-Russian national elites. The rights of republics and autonomous regions were whittled away, their boundaries arbitrarily redrawn, and the populations of some liquidated or forcibly resettled during World War II, as in the cases of Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechen-Ingush, Volga Germans and Meskhetian Georgians. National histories were rewritten to emphasize the progressive character of Russian imperialism, and criticism of Great Russian chauvinism came to an end. Central economic ministries treated the entire territory of the U.S.S.R. as a single complex, establishing new industries and relocating workers without concern for republic boundaries. The cultivation of national languages and cultures was replaced by a process of Sovietization that was sometimes indistinguishable from Russification. The imperial features of the Soviet system were further strengthened during World War II with the forcible annexation of the Baltic states, the western Ukraine and Byelorussia, and part of Moldavia.

Notice the stress at the last paragraph on the priority of Russian dominance as the key to Soviet nationalities policy. But that's more a political development more than an ideological one. The Soviets, for example, sought to assimilate Jews not as a religious group but as a national one. The Soviets even tried, unsuccessfully, to establish a Jewish national homeland within the Soviet Union, called the Jewish Autonomous Province (Oblast). In Russia today the entity is known as the Jewish Autonomous Region.

The point here is that the recognized far-left and far-right ideological formations of the early 20th century created radically opposed orientations toward race and ethnicity (but not toward the concentration of political power). The Nazis called for the extermination of the Jews, as well as gypsies (mainly Eastern Europeans) and the disabled. The Soviets, in the Leninist compromise, sought a multi-national compromise for lack of any realistic alternative, since more than 100 ethnic groups formed the multi-national state of the early Soviet Union. That's not to say there wasn't ethnic cleansing or genocidal eliminations (just ask the Ukraines, for example). But it does point to an extremely complicated set of world historical circumstances that create huge obstacles for the easy ideological pigeonholes partisan attempt to exploit today.

Here's one more example. Recall I mentioned Robert Paxton's book earlier, The Anatomy of Fascism. While lots of conservatives today like to place fascism on the left of the spectrum, and not without good reason, it's worth noting (see Liberal Fascism), fascist ideology often does merge toward racial exclusionism. Early fascists focused on romanticism and the elevation of a populist "chosen people" who would fulfill the destiny or mission of a self-identified group of people. Hitler's Mein Kampf, published in 1923, rested on explicit master race theories, and these were accepted in Italy as well, in Aldo Bertele's, Aspetti ideologici del fascismo in 1930. As Paxton writes of the emergence of fascism in the 1920s, at his introduction:

Fascism ... was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophicalsystem, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not beengiven intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.

In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms," the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name.Fascism is “true" insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and notin the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.

We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as,living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities [A. Bertele].

The truth was whatever permitted the new fascist man (and woman) to dominate others, and whatever made the chosen people triumph.Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related toromanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’sexaltation of unfettered personal creativity.

The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experiencesensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience,Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.

The emphasis on collective salvation is key to fascism, as it's an ideology that fetishizes the state. And in that sense, in contemporary American politics, it's the hard-left that venerates the state over the individual. The left romanticizes state power, and the natural tendency of that ideology is to suppress deviations from the approved collective program. We see it time and again, in the neo-statist programs of the Obama administration and in the social policy fascism of the left's homosexual rights agenda. You can't step out of line. Further, that strain on the left departs radically from the constitutional liberalism (libertarianism) of the tea party.

So let's be clear: Wade Michael Page was a Nazi. He espoused racialist theories and white supremacy. He was thus not at all within the mainstream of conservative thinking today, no matter what the MSM hacks will try to tell you. Still, it remains inaccurate to attempt a simplistic left-right placement, and it's simplistic to argue that only the left is totalitarian. Here's the key: With the exception of some on the left, no one in American politics today openly espouses Alolph Hitler's racial exterminism (Hitlerism, in Jonah Goldberg's formulation, which left-wing anti-Semites approximate). Moreover, while conservatives naturally repudiate hard-right racialist theories, many on the left today openly venerate Stalinist ideology. The ANSWER Coalition --- which has been perhaps the leading hard-left protest organization for the last decade --- traces its background to the Stalinist World Workers Party. Folks like this are widely embraced by progressives, at my college, for example, and during the left's "One Nation" protest in D.C. in 2010. There's is nothing remotely equivalent among conservatives, or in William Jacobson's words, "on the political right" today. To the one, when extremists or racists showed their faces at the tea parties they were repudiated and ejected from the events. What we call the conservative movement today repudiates the "far-right" that hacks like Jonathan Capehart exploit for political gain. Not so on the America's contemporary "far-left."

So there you go. There might be a couple of conservatives who might favor a bit more clearly defined categories (putting fascists entirely on the left, for example), but it's not like that. Despite complications, though, there's still plenty of difference between the main antagonists in American politics today to make a left vs. right framework useful, as I mentioned above. That left-right ideological continuum is the established frame to discuss the programs of the major political actors. Historians and political scientists have deployed that framework for over a hundred years. There's nothing wrong with keeping it, as long as people are clear about the practical differences of today's major political formations. The left today, what we would call the progressives and the Obama-Democrats, are authoritarian in orientation, with combined attributes of hard-line socialist dogma and fascistic strains in the social realm. Wade Michael Page doesn't fit easily on that side of spectrum, but Jared Loughner does. And even Anders Behring Breivik fits better on the left of the spectrum than the right, despite the the left's "blame-righty' attacks after the Norway shooting. Indeed, one of Breivik's heroes is hard-left progressive Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

RELATED:

* At London's Daily Mail, "Revealed: Sikh temple gunman was being monitored by feds before massacre - as 911 call from shooting is released."

* At Fox News, "Sikh Temple Shooter Michael Wade Urged Fellow White Supremacist to get Involved."

* At the Guardian UK, "Wade Michael Page's acquaintances recall a troubled man guided by hate."

* At the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal (via NBC 26 Wisconsin), "Shooter's Odd Behavior Did Not Go Unnoticed." And, "Through band, Page says he wanted get results 'in our sick society'."

* At New York Magazine, "Wade Michael Page’s White Supremacy Was No Secret Prior to Sikh Temple Shooting."

BONUS: The white power Label|56 dropped ties to Page. The press release is here. And there's a Stormfront thread here. The group's not please with a report out last night titled, "US racists worried over Sikh killings."

Anders Behring Breivik Goes on Trial

At Telegraph UK, "Anders Behring Breivik forced to confront cold reality of his crimes," and "Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik moved to tears."

Breivik's emotional at the video, but most of the coverage indicates he was defiant.

More here, "Anders Behring Breivik spent a year playing World of Warcraft role-playing game online," and "Anders Behring Breivik statement 'will determine legal sanity'."

And at London's Daily Mail, "The red dots died, the yellow dots survived: Court sees chilling map of Breivik's deadly rampage around island," and "'There's someone shooting just outside. He's coming in': Terrifying phone call of survivor of Breivik's massacre is played to court."

My previous reporting is here. And see especially, "Anders Behring Breivik — No Clear Ideological Program."

Who's to Blame for Terrorism?

From Cliff May, at National Review:

Who deserves the blame for the terrorist attacks in Norway? My answer would be the perpetrator and no one else — unless it turns out there really is a modern Knights Templar or some other organized movement that sent him on his mission of mass murder.

But there are those who disagree, who see this atrocity as part of a wider conspiracy — or, perhaps, as a convenient stick with which to beat their political and ideological opponents.

One example: The New York Times last week ran an editorial arguing that Anders Behring Breivik was “influenced by public debate and the extent to which that debate makes ideas acceptable.” The “broader” issue, says the Times, is that “inflammatory political rhetoric is increasingly tolerated.”

Which raises the questions: Who decides what constitutes inflammatory rhetoric? And if such rhetoric is unacceptable and intolerable, who should censor it and by what means? (Memo to young readers: Back in the day, great newspapers were defenders of free speech, including that which some would see as inflammatory.)

Great piece. Coolly reasoned. RTWT.

Digby's Hullabaloo, Progressive Libel Blogger, Attacks Pamela Geller as Anders Breivik's Muse

That's Big Mama Digby (Heather Parton) at the picture. She's one sick bitch.

Here's the post: "The Murderer's Muse." Digby feigned a retraction by writing:

I was wrong to compare Geller to Tim McVeigh and I apologize for doing it. She has personally committed no violence and can't stand next to him for sheer evil. I do think the genocidal rants on her blog are worthy of condemnation and since she wrote them and featured those of others, she does bear responsibility for them.

Nope. Sorry. That's not gonna cut it. Should've just deleted the post and moved on. The progressives are obviously too stupid to actually read what Pamela wrote. See, "SUMMER CAMP? ANTISEMITIC INDOCTRINATION TRAINING CENTER." Following the links takes us to The Anti-Mullah, "ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NORWAY LABOR PARTY PALESTINIAN AFFILIATION."

I saw photos of the Labor Youth camp's "Boikott Israel" banners within hours of the shooting. Norway's Labor Party is a classic new-left Israel-bashing organization. See, "Norwegian campsite Utoya was socialist and anti-Israel." I personally ignored this angle because the killings went beyond normal political differences, and I thought it better to simply highlight what I could about the psychology of Anders Breivik. It bears repeating that Breivik is a deranged criminal acting outside the normal bounds of reason. No movement or ideology can possibly be blamed for the actions of this sick loser. He's insane. But progressives continue to exploit the dead for their cheap attacks on conservatives and counter-jihad. Folks should see over at Pamaela's now. She's documented the campaign of death against her, including an endless stream of vicious email invective that might as well been sent by the Antichrist himself. See, "EVIL UNLEASHED":

"We are witnesssing the complete breakdown of rational society."

Melanie Phillips has made the same point repeatedly, calling the attacks on her as the latest in the left's totalitarian inquisition:

They [progressives] are in the same mould as the religious and political totalitarian tyrannies of the past; they make in this respect common cause with the Islamists whose agenda poses a mortal threat to their own lives and liberties and most cherished beliefs; and they share the characteristic of a closed thought system which is totally impervious to reason and destroys all who challenge it with the monsters of history and Anders Behring Breivik.

That is surely why the left seized upon the Norway atrocity with demented joy and detonated a terrifying eruption of distortion and demonisation, irrationality, hatred and sheer blood-lust as it saw in the ravings of Anders Behring Breivik the mother and father of all smears which it could use to crush those who refuse to surrender to cultural totalitarianism. So those of us who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against their enemies found ourselves – and by implication, the many millions who share these mainstream views – grotesquely damned as accessories to mass murder by those who actually cheer on religious fascists and genocidal madmen and who are set upon silencing all who resist.

The appalling actions of a Norwegian psychopath tell us next to nothing about our society. But the reaction to that atrocity tells us a great deal more.

Pat Condell: 'Violence Is Not the Answer'

Via Blazing Cat Fur, "Pat Condell on Anders Behring Breivik."

Tea Party Terrorists?

The partisan rhetoric is already over the top, but slamming conservative Republicans as "terrorists" is beyond the pale. William Yeomans, at Politico, is not cool: "The tea party's terrorist tactics" (via Memeorandum).

It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists.

They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.

This guy is talking about the GOP's elected representatives in Congress, and this is after Anders Behring Breivik, a real terrorist, killed dozens in Norway. And this is also while Army Private Nasser Jason Abdo, and antiwar leftist, is being arraigned in Texas and could face federal terrorism charges. But Yoemans isn't the only one. Idiot Washington Monthly columnist Steve Benen is slamming GOP members as "the suicide squad", and Little Boy Ezra at Washington Post is bemoaning the GOP's aversion to compromise, saying this reflects badly on John Boehner.

It's to be expected, I guess. So, let's hear it from the other side, from Byron York, "In debt fight, Dems reject Republican compromise":

House Speaker John Boehner has introduced two bills that would raise the nation's debt ceiling and end the current default crisis. The first, known as "Cut, Cap and Balance," was tabled by Senate Democrats without an up-or-down vote. The second, Boehner's plan to cut more than $900 billion in federal spending and raise the debt ceiling by a slightly smaller amount, could face a similar fate if it first passes the House ...

While Obama preaches the virtues of compromise, his Democratic allies and surrogates are bashing Republicans for rejecting what the White House characterizes as earnest, good-faith efforts to find common ground. "I hope that Speaker Boehner and [Minority] Leader McConnell will reconsider their intransigence," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a few days ago. "Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default." (At the same time, Reid has been issuing absolute, inflexible statements like, "I will not support any short-term agreement.")

But the fact is, the Republicans who admitted defeat on "Cut, Cap and Balance" showed a unmistakable willingness to compromise. "The president has asked us to compromise," House Minority Leader Eric Cantor said Thursday afternoon. "We have compromised."

RELATED: At New York Times, "House Passes Boehner’s New Debt Plan."

Halden Prison

See this deceptively titled photo-essay at Maggie's Farm, "The Beautiful Halden Luxury Retirement Centre."

Also at NYDN, "Norway massacre suspect Anders Behring Breivik's potential prison digs equipped with fancy luxuries." And here's this from London's Daily Mail in 2010, "World's poshest prison? Cells with en-suite bathrooms and no window bars (plus £1m Banksy-style art)":

Halden opened it's doors officially last month, taking in the first batch of inmates. Prison governor Are Hoidal said there have been no escape attempts.

He said: 'In the Norwegian prison system, there's a focus on human rights and respect.

'We don't see any of this as unusual.

'When they arrive many of them are in bad shape and we want to build them up, give them confidence through education and work and have them leave as better people.'

Halden also features jogging trails in nearby woods and a freestanding two-bedroom house where inmates can host their families during overnight visits.

In Norway only 20 per cent of prisoners end up back in jail after release, compared to between 50 and 60 per cent in the UK.

Sounds so great, although Norwegian society still managed to produce Anders Breivik.

RELATED: At Daily Caller, "Police: Alleged Norwegian mass murderer faces just 21 years in Prison." But see The Economist, "Flowers for freedom: As Norwegians mourn their dead, they insist that they will not give up the openness of their society."

Mr Breivik is in police custody, in solitary confinement without access to news or the internet for the next eight weeks. Though he has confessed to the killings, he denies he committed a crime. He will probably be charged under a recent terrorism provision in the criminal code that allows a 30-year prison sentence. There are other provisions that could keep him locked up for the rest of his life. The Norwegian police have yet to answer conclusively the vital question of whether he acted alone or with accomplices.

A facet of Norwegian openness—its tolerance of diversity—was one of the things that fuelled Mr Breivik’s mass slaughter. The Labour Party, the dominant force in Norwegian politics for decades, came into his cross-hairs because of its staunch defence of both diversity and tolerance. AUF, the party youth wing that organised the camp on Utoya island, was a doubly attractive target in his twisted ideology: it is fervently anti-racist and many members come from Norway’s ethnic minorities.

Norway Killings Shift Immigrant Debate in Europe

At New York Times, "Shift in Europe Seen in Debate on Immigrants":

BERLIN — Less than a week after the mass killings in Norway, evidence of a shift in the debate over Islam and the radical right in Europe already appeared to be taking hold on a traumatized Continent.

As the police in Norway and abroad continued to search for potential accomplices, expressions of outrage over the deaths crossed the political spectrum. Members of far-right parties in Sweden and Italy were condemned from within their own ranks for blaming multiculturalism for the attack. A member of France’s far-right National Front was suspended for praising the attacker.

Lurking in the background is the calculation on all sides that such tragedies can drive shifts in public opinion. Nonviolent political parties can hardly be blamed for the violent actions of a terrorist or a homicidal person. But politicians have begun to question inflammatory speech in the debate over immigrants, which has helped fuel the rise of right-leaning politicians across Europe in recent years.

More at the link above.

I'm kinda shocked to see right parties endorsing the killings, or at least defending Breivik. What he did is indefensible. More at the Right Perspective, "European Far Right Cautiously Stands With Brievik."

And at Telegraph UK, "National Front member suspended for defending Anders Behring Breivik."

Charles Johnson Browbeat Forbes' Abigail Esman After She Correctly Noted That Anders Breivik Voluminously Cited Little Green Footballs

"I've never seen such craven, dishonest spinning."

That's Charles Johnson attacking Bill O'Reilly. But it's actually a perfect self-description. And a textbook case of psychological projection. King Charles has been working feverishly to not only destroy his political enemies following the Norway massacre, but to also obliterate the facts of his post-9/11 counter-jihad blogging. And it's astonishing, but I don't think there's a single person more invested in the crass exploitation of these murders — and that's saying a lot. The other day, Forbes writer Abigail Esman wrote an analysis of the Norway killings: "What Really Lies Behind The Oslo Attacks – And Why It May Happen Again." Discussing Anders Behring Breivik, Esman wrote:

... he frequently praises a writer who goes by the name “Fjordman” and who is well known on the conservative, largely anti-Islam circuit; and he often cites posts from the site Little Green Footballs and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugged, both of which are popular not only among anti-Islam activists, but amon[g] even more moderate types concerned about the rise of radical Islam in the West.

She linked to both Little Green Footballs and Atlas Shrugs at the quote, and The Lizard King fired off a blog post as soon as he checked his traffic stats: "Forbes Writer Gets Oslo Terrorist Story Very Wrong."

Actually, no. Folks should cruise around at Diary of Daedalus blog, which has chronicled just how intimately the work of Little Green Footballs played into the deranged mind of a killer. See "Rescued from Memory Hole: The Lost LGF “Fjordman” Articles," and especially, "Little Green Footballs, Anders Breivik’s and the United States Blog-based Anti-Jihad Movement":

The political left has been gleeful poring over the many references to certain anti-Islamist blog personalities mentioned in the document, and these sites have been diligently mining the 1500 plus page manuscript for juicy references to their favorite adversaries on the conservative right.

Unfortunately, most of these leftist bloggers and news sources are either myopic in their journalistic skills, or worst, just plain dishonest actors. Over and over they have pounced on every reference in the manifesto to persons such as Bat Ye’or, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, the mysterious writer “Fjordman,” Daniel Pipes and MEMRI, while at the same time, almost totally ignoring the former leader of this “movement” of anti-Islamic sentiment, the blog Little Green Footballs and it’s founder Charles Johnson.

No doubt. (And continue reading here.) Diary of Daedalus notes that since 2007 Charles Johnson has been aggressively attempting to "convince people that he was never the person imagined on LGF, pre-2007, that he was always “fair and balanced” and that he never harbored any animosities toward any aspect of Islam or the political left." It's a mind-boggling thing.

In any case, Little Green Footballs is cited a number of times by Anders Behring Breivik. Abigail Esman was absolutely correct to note that Charles Johnson's blog was a major source for the murderer. But King Charles couldn't handle the truth. He apparently berated and browbeat the Forbes author, harassing her by e-mail on several occasions, until Esman removed his name hoping to end the abuse. See the comments at Esman's essay:

I can understand Esman's desire to prevent further attacks from Charles Johnson. Yet it serves as one more example of those who stand for the truth being beaten down by the progressive destroyers of reason. At his post calling out Esman, King Charles writes:

I’ve had nothing to do with the “anti-Islam” blogosphere for years — in fact, they absolutely hate my guts. And Breivik did not cite posts from Little Green Footballs — he republished old articles by “Fjordman” that cited LGF, and he also cites many articles viciously attacking me.

That's an epic lie. Breivik did indeed "cite posts from Little Green Footballs." The fact is, Charles Johnson was one of the very most important counter-jihad bloggers and it was less the four years ago that he initiated his abandonment of the right. I mean, seriously. Breivik cited Little Green Footballs voluminously. Check this one again: "Little Green Footballs, Anders Breivik’s and the United States Blog-based Anti-Jihad Movement." Also: "The Charles Johnson / LGF Connection."

Folks can also go right to the source: "2083 – A European Declaration of Independence."

Der Spiegel: An Atmosphere of Suspicion in Europe

See, "European Right Under Pressure in Wake of Attacks":

Europe's right-wing populists are not used to being on the defensive. But the perpetrator of last Friday's horrific attacks in Norway was steeped in their anti-immigration, Muslim-skeptical ideology. They now find themselves in an uncomfortable position.

It was a somber gathering on the street out in front of the Norwegian Embassy in Berlin on Monday. Several people filed by throughout the morning to lay flowers in front of the embassy gates and Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel also came to show his respect and sympathy in the wake of the Friday attacks which killed 76 people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya.

Just over a dozen of those standing in front of the embassy were holding signs: "The Capital of Fear? Not with Us!" they read, beneath the image of an ominous-looking figure wearing a black balaclava. The group belonged to the small right-wing populist group Pro-Deutschland. "Solidarity with Oslo!" the group chanted.

"When something so terrible happens in Europe, we felt that we needed to express our sympathy," Manfred Rouhs, the small party's lead candidate in upcoming Berlin city-state elections, told SPIEGEL ONLINE on Tuesday. "We also saw it as an opportunity to clearly distance ourselves from the terrible deed."

That, it would seem, has been tops on the priority list for right-wing populist groups around Europe so far this week. Muslim-skeptic, anti-immigration populist groups across Europe have rushed to condemn the attacks perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik and to portray him as a disturbed loner. The English Defense League, for example, referred to him as a "murderous creature," the Freedom Party of Austria called it a "psychopathic crime."

RTWT.

Anders Behring Breivik's Contacts with English Defence League

I've been dealing with this all day, so I'm not going to worry too much if any blogging friends get ruffled here. This is about information dissemination in pursuit of greater knowledge. See previously: "Anders Behring Breivik Closely Linked to English Defence League, Telegraph Reports." It turns out that EDL's getting lots of attention. See Telegraph UK, "Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik emailed 'manifesto' to 250 British contacts."

Anders Behring Breivik emailed his 1,500-page “manifesto” to 250 British contacts less than 90 minutes before he detonated a bomb in Oslo.

Scotland Yard’s domestic extremism unit, which is investigating Breivik’s British links, has been sent a list of UK-based email addresses among 1,003 recipients of the document.

Breivik joined online conversations with members of the Right-wing English Defence League, telling them to “keep up the good work” in the months before he killed 76 people in Norway’s worst terrorist outrage.

He was told he would be welcome at EDL demonstrations, and wrote about visiting Bradford and London. He is also reported to have attended an EDL rally in Newcastle.

Using the name Andrew Berwick, Breivik emailed out his manifesto, and a link to a YouTube video showing him holding a gun, at 2.09pm on Friday, one hour and 17 minutes before his bomb detonated in Oslo. He addressed each recipient as a “Western European patriot” and wrote: “It is a gift to you … I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know.”

Continue reading.

Also at The Daily Mirror, "Anders Breivik told English Defence League members to 'keep up the good work'."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Police probe claim Norwegian gunman marched with English Defence League." And The Independent, "Endorsement by mass murderer exposes EDL to fresh scrutiny":

Detectives are probing Breivik's boasts that he met "tens of EDL members and leaders" in the decade leading up to Friday's massacre. He claimed in his 1,500-page "manifesto", posted online, to have visited Britain twice since 2002 to attend EDL rallies and had more than 600 EDL supporters as Facebook friends.

Police in Britain and Norway are also investigating his claims to have met a group of ultra-nationalists in London nine years ago at which they vowed to resist the spread of Muslim influence across Europe.

Scotland Yard is understood to be probing whether he met former members of the Neo-Nazi groups Combat 18 and Column 88 – both now considered defunct – at that time.

However, security sources believe that Breivik is most likely to have been a lone wolf similar to David Copeland, the London "nailbomber" who killed three people in 1999, and suspect that his assertion to have been part of a far-Right uprising is fantasy.

But the resultant publicity has left the EDL – which is known to be infiltrated by Special Branch and the security services – in an unprecendented media spotlight. With its links to football hooliganism, it had been previously most associated with street protests sometimes degenerating into violence.

Founded in 2009 by Stephen Lennon, who was this week convicted of leading a group of Luton Town supporters in a massive street brawl, the EDL repeatedly stresses it is only concerned with fighting "militant Islam".

Its leading figures, none of whom have experience in mainstream politics, operate as a loose network.

On Monday, Mr Lennon made a rare foray before the television cameras to ridicule suggestions of links with Breivik, suggesting the EDL is changing its strategy in dealing with the media.

A tetchy encounter with Jeremy Paxman on BBC2's Newsnight left him forecasting that similar attacks could take place in the UK if the right of peaceful protest was taken away: "You need to listen because, God forbid, this ever happens on British soil... it's the time coming... you're probably five or 10 years away."

That's the interview at top. The Independent probably gives as good a summary as we'll get, although I'd like to see proof of the emails allegedly sent by Breivik.

RELATED: It's a far left-wing website, but they've got screencaps. See: "English Defence League in denial. In more ways than one."

Lawyer Says Anders Behring Breivik 'Insane'

At Telegraph UK, "Norway killer: Anders Behring Breivik 'insane'."

Anders Behring Breivik was “surprised” he was able to carry on shooting students on Utoya island for 90 minutes before police eventually caught up with him, his solicitor said, as he made clear he regarded his client as “insane”.

Anders Behring Breivik Closely Linked to English Defence League, Telegraph Reports

Well, Telegraph UK is reporting Breivik's ties to EDL. Given Gates of Vienna's aggressive defense of English Defence League, and of course the massive citiations to Fjordman, etc., at the Breivik manifesto, it'd be interesting to see GOV's response.

Not to put too much emphasis on this (since I consider Breivik a lone actor and crazed criminal sociopath), it's nevertheless interesting --- amid all the blame shifting to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer --- that Atlas Shrugs and SIOA explicitly distanced themselves from EDL last month. See Pamela's report, "EDL SHAKE-UP." Pamela indicated that while she once supported EDL, the group had become infiltrated with crackpots and racists, and that she could no longer support the group if it continued its path to extremism. Her comments stirred up a hornet's nest of resentment at Gates of Vienna, and Pamela updated at Atlas Shrugs, "LORD OF THE FLIES: MACHIAVELLI COMES TO THE BLOGOSPHERE," and "THE EVIL THAT MEN DO."

Again, the point here is more to how Gates of Vienna would like to respond to news from Telegraph UK. Comments remain closed at the blog, which is exactly opposite to how Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have responded to allegations. Moreover, others are pointing out Pamela's rejection of EDL as well. See The Right Perspective, "Pam Geller Shrugged Off EDL Before Attack."

ADDENDUM: I'll have more on this, but to be clear. Counter-jihad bloggers are not responsible for the unfathomable evil of Anders Behring Breivik. Indeed, Jason Papas provides an important analysis indicating that left-wing progressive ideologies of "identity politics" provide a key explanation to the killer's motives. That is:

His [Breivik's] politics is what the left commonly calls “Identity Politics”. It has little grounding in the [classical] liberal thought which is common in the anti-jihadi writers that he cites. They are first and foremost alarmed by the illiberal nature of Islam. Breivik agrees with the problem but has adapted a collectivist solution that is obviously his own. He has stepped off into an imagined war of all against all. He is alone in this war as he deserves to be.

Given that, one might think that Gates of Vienna would emerge from their medieval dungeons and join the debate. We need more discussion on this, and the new information on Breivik and EDL provides a new area of investigation.

Added: Kathy Shaidle sends this along: "Norway: EDL leader Tommy Robinson holds his own against old pansy on BBC TV."

Update 3:30pm PST: Stogie comments: "Norway Shooter and the English Defence League."

And see Exposing the English Defence League, "English Defence League in denial. In more ways than one."

Stoltenberg Faces Norway Grief as Island Killings Turn Paradise Into Hell

At Bloomberg:

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg is struggling to steer Norway through its deepest trauma since World War II as the Nordic bastion of equality comes to grips with last week’s mass killings by a right-wing extremist.

Sixty-eight people were gunned down on July 22 at a Labor Party youth camp on the island of Utoeya, northwest of Oslo. Stoltenberg, who leads the Labor Party, said that the “paradise island of my youth” had been “transformed into hell.” The killer, 32-year-old Norwegian national Anders Behring Breivik, confessed to the shooting and a separate bombing that killed eight people. Police today revised down an earlier estimate of 93 casualties.

Norway, the world’s second-richest nation per capita after Luxembourg, is reeling from Europe’s worst attack since the 2004 school massacre in Beslan, Russia, claimed about 350 lives. Home to Europe’s lowest jobless rate and biggest budget surplus, Norway must now come to terms with a threat of violence normally associated with less stable societies, the prime minister said.

More at the link above.

See also The New Jersey Star-Ledger, "07-25-11: Photos of the Day."

How The New York Times Spins the Norway Horror

From Ron Radosh, at Pajamas Media (via Glenn Reynolds):

Leave it to today’s New York Times to run a front- page story about the murders perpetrated by the crazed right-wing fanatic, Anders Behring Breivik, that is more accurately described as a not-so veiled editorial. Written by Scott Shane, the article begins by proclaiming that Breivik “was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.”

The implication that he develops is that Breivik’s actions can be attributed to those who for years have been trying to educate the public in the West bout the threat posted to our values and way of life by the forces of radical Islam. In particular, Shane singles out- by virtue of Breivik having cited his writing 64 times in his manifesto- the writings of Robert Spencer at the website Jihad Watch, part of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, as well, he writes, of “other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.”

That sentence says it all: those who correctly point out that dangers of sectarian enclaves of unassimilated Muslim immigrants in Europe, of people who do not accept the laws and standards of the nations to which they have immigrated, and who consider themselves proponents of both jihad and sharia law, are not a danger. Instead, the danger comes from those who point out the uncomfortable truths that many dare not face.

Continue reading.

That's a phenomenal, and brutally honest, essay.

A Boost for the Islamists

From Israel Matzav, just read the whole thing.

PREVIOUSLY: "Progressives Attack Pamela Geller and Counter-Jihad"; "'The Left hasn't been this giddy since Rep. Giffords was shot'"; and "Just Awful: Progressives Ecstatic Over Anders Behring Breivik Alleged Ties to Right-Wing Extremism."

Norway Mourns Its Dead as Harsh Rhetoric Spreads

At Wall Street Journal:

OSLO — A Norwegian man confessed to killing nearly 100 people in a pair of attacks on Friday, calling his rampage "atrocious" but "necessary."

The confession by Anders Behring Breivik, made via his lawyer and preceded by a 1,500-page, xenophobic screed he published online before the massacre, has shocked this small Scandinavian country and unnerved governments across Europe, where far-right parties espousing anti-Muslim views, if not violence, have recently been on the rise ...

Norway, a relatively wealthy, sparsely populated country, has little recent history of political extremism, much less terrorism. That it was the site of such an attack, even if by an isolated gunman, has unleashed concern across Europe that the anti-immigrant underswell that has swept much of the Continent in recent years could metastasize suddenly and unexpectedly into violence.

As flags across the city hung at half-staff, hundreds of people flocked in the rain Sunday to Oslo Cathedral, where Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, King Harald of Norway and other leaders attended a memorial service. Outside, many onlookers openly wept and milled about for hours as they contributed to a growing carpet of flowers and candles.

Continue reading.

Progressives Attack Pamela Geller and Counter-Jihad

I'd be interested to know how many people attacking Pamela Geller and the counter-jihad movement have actually read Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto, or his Internet posting at Document.no.

Breivik's papers is over 1,500 pages long and rambles on about everything from personal hygiene to the development of radiological weapons. The killer also lifts word-for-word the writings of authors who have focused on the existential fight against Islamist jihad. And given the nature of both the Norway massacre and extreme gotcha politics of ideological progressives, it took only minutes for blame to shift from the deranged murderer to the most prominent conservatives fighting for the preservation of freedom. It doesn't work the other way around. When Nidal Malik Hasan massacred 13 soldiers and civilians in November 2009 the progressive left and MSM mounted a massive cover operation for a man who yelled "Allah Akbar" before opening fire. Behold the politics of the information battlespace. The truth gradient doesn't favor those fighting for decency and justice. And it means those who know truth in their hearts and souls must redouble their efforts against the broadsides. And to remind people, right commentators were gathering their information from MSM outlets like the New York Times, which had this in its initial reporting:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible. In 2004 and again in 2008, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over after the death of Osama bin Laden, threatened Norway because of its support of the American-led NATO military operation in Afghanistan.

Norway has about 550 soldiers and three medevac helicopters in northern Afghanistan, a Norwegian defense official said. The government has indicated that it will continue to support the operations as long as the alliance needs partners on the ground.

It won't matter much to the left, but the truth is supreme and righteousness floats to the top. Amid the cloud of death that still hangs, the debate will rage on the culpability of influence. So for what it's worth, here's a little round-up of those exploiting the dead to destroy their political enemies:

* Adam Server, "In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance."

* Balloon Juice, "“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free”."

* Booman Tribune, "Pam Geller Compares Herself to John Lennon."

* Charles Johnson, "NYT: US 'Counter-Jihad' Bloggers Heavily Influenced Oslo Terrorist."

* Daily Kos, "Norway killer found inspiration in American anti-Islamism."

* Dean's World, "Atlas Shrugs Blogger Pamela Geller an Inspiration for Terrorists."

* Roy Edroso, "Rightbloggers Discover the Real Victims of Norway Mass Murderer Breivik: Themselves."

* William Saletan, "If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?"

I'll have more on this later. Political and ideological debates are driven by an obscene double standard. To speak out against Islamist jihad is to be labeled "racist" or "Islmophobic." And it's frankly gut-wrenching to witness the left's vile opportunism amid the carnage.

And see Pamela's response: "MEDIA ASSASSINS."

RELATED: At New York Times, "Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S." (At Memeorandum.)