Norway - The Great Misinformation

First, I want to thank all of you who sent comments to the previous post. I have begun checking the links, although events move at such a rapid pace, it is almost impossible to keep up. A topic like this is so difficult to deal with. First, the deluge of attempts to psychoanalyze the killer becomes mind-numbing, and in the end, we still don't know anything. But more than that, the wildly inappropriate presentations by the media of a "Christian fundamentalist" and a "right-winger" can really set off feelings of despair in any well-intentioned and justifiably concerned European or American patriot. The French Catholic blogs have focused on why Anders Breivik cannot be a Christian. I hope to do at least one post on this aspect of the event, but I feel certain that any thoughtful reader understands that what Breivik did is not only anti-Christian, but closer in fact to what we call "Satanic" murders.

Here is some reading, which you probably need like a hole in the head, not to mention the fact that you may already have read this material. Still, you may find something of interest here:

The Blogmocracy has an article about the indoctrination against Israel that was taking place on the island of Utoya. The author makes it clear that even though he condemns the indoctrination, he also condemns the killings.

Here is another from Israel Hayom on Israel's offer of aid to Norway after attacks.

Gary Bauer denies Breivik is or could possibly be a Christian. From VFR.

American writer and gay activist Bruce Bawer who lives in Norway explains the ways in which the Norwegian government has been doing all it can to please the Muslims. I highly recommend this article.

H/T: VFR

Gates of Vienna has posted the statements of Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Fjordman.

Wilders', Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Fjordman feel deeply implicated in this latest massacre because the killer referred to their writings in his so-called manifesto. Their first thought, quite naturally, is to point out the impossible connection between what they wrote and what the killer actually did. None of the anti-Islamist writers condones mass killing of innocent people. And even if the youth on that island were engaged in actions that we find reprehensible, this does not mean, cannot mean, that we condone such murderous acts. The question remains, though, as to whether or not these writings had an effect on the killer's psyche to such an extent that he actually performed a horrifying deed, and whether or not more such deeds lie ahead, predictably, inevitably, if not from Brievik, then from others like him.

My feeling right now is that he was a natural-born killer in need of an ideology. He found an ideology and it justified (to him) the shedding of innocent blood. Killers such as Brievik enjoy killing, they get a "high", they feel fulfilled, and they are ready to spend 21 years in prison, since Norway, like France, has a maximum sentence of 21 or 22 years. (However, Norway, like France, can detain them longer without a new trial if they pose a threat to society.) Some will disagree with the notion of a "natural-born killer". Are killers born or made? I don't have the answer to that.

This becomes something of a joke. The Norwegian police could not even get to the island for 90 minutes because the helicopter police were on vacation. And the Norwegian justice system will not be able to execute this man because of society's liberal views on capital crimes.

When I studied the French Revolution in school we were told that the writings of Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau had set the stage for the revolt. The so-called Enlightenment, basically an anti-Christian movement, and its "philosophes" had so fired up the populace that they stormed the Bastille, took to the streets, constituted themselves a legislative body, murdered those that defied them or those they hated, and ultimately became notorious terrorists, in a feverish effort to eradicate the Monarchy and the Church. But if we blame the great writers of the 18th century for the carnage that ensued, must we then blame men like Fjordman for the Norway massacre? Are writings to blame, are the writers of those writings to blame, however unwittingly, for the actions of a killer?

I suppose it is safe to say that ideas that are "in the air", ideas that make powerful distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, ideas that question the actions and policies of a lax and treasonous government, ideas that warn men of the grave dangers that lie ahead, are sooner or later going to be implanted in the minds of potential killers, who, as I said, need a reason to kill. But I am still not 100% convinced that there is a direct link between anti-Islamic writings, and what this 32-year old man did. Nor am I convinced that he was, as he claims, concerned about the decay of the West and the takeover by the forces of Islam. It is more likely, isn't it, that he was acting out a fantasy?

There are comparisons with Colombine, Beslan, Virginia Tech., Oklahoma City, among many...

In any case, Breivik was not a Christian, whatever he said. He was, it appears, quite the opposite: an anti-Christian and a Mason. The lodge to which he belonged has ejected him. The grand master of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons, Ivar A. Sklar, denounced his act, and refuses any responsibility for the crime, stating that the Lodge espouses "Christian values". H/T: Yves Daoudal

Here is an 18-minute video from Canada, featuring Ezra Levant and Michael Coren. Coren rejects with sound arguments the MSM proclamation of Breivik as a "Christian Fundamentalist."

Below, a photo of the Grand Lodge of Norway with the red and white flag. The red cross was featured on the cover of the Breivik's manifesto, emphasizing his adherence to Norwegian Masonry. I want to point out that the Lodge, whatever one may think of Freemasonry, cannot be held responsible. Only the killer is responsible, no matter how strong the influences on his thinking.