Sunday, July 24, 2011

Is Anders Breivik perfectly sane?

In seeking to understand the atrocity that the self-declared anti-Muslim, Norwegian crusader Anders Breivik claims to have carried out single-handedly, there seem to be three possible interpretations.

It was:

(a) a psyop to delegitimize opposition to mass immigration to Europe;

(b) the work of madman;

(c) the first shot in a European civil war between patriotic nationalists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the globalist plutocratic elite and its political and bureaucratic creatures that seek to destroy the European nations as racial, religious and cultural entities.

(d) something else.

At first sight, a psyop may seem the most probable explanation. But then consider the circumstances:

In 2009, the Telegraph reported:
...Only 3.2 per cent of Spain’s population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe’s Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys’ names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.
Which makes possibility (c) seem entirely possible, i.e., that Breivik is perfectly sane and that he is exactly what he says he is, a crusader fighting Muslim settlement which threatens the extinction of both Christianity in Europe and the European peoples, whose best hope of posterity, it would appear, is to become a Muslim and marry an immigrant.

If (c) is the case, then what will be the consequences?

Will we see a long-running series of such terrorist acts directed at the political elite and its foot soldiers (as in this case)? And if so, what will be the political fall out? Will it create a backlash that strengthens the forces of political correctness leading to the further repression of opposition to the destruction of the European nations? Or will people in large numbers, in particular members of the political class and the bureaucracy that undertake the work of the elite, begin to rethink their loyalties?

What is ominous about this incident, for the elite, is that the attacks were directed not aimlessly at ordinary people going about their daily lives -- as in the case of 9/11 or 7/7, but at the office of the Prime Minister and at a gathering of left wing political activists.

This is a mark of real anti-state terrorism, not state sponsored false flag terrorism: the kind of terrorism that forced Britain to negotiate with the IRA after the Queen's cousin, Lord Louis Mountbatten, and Margaret Thatcher's Northern Ireland Minister, Airey Neave, had been murdered, a Royal Marine Commando band had been bombed, Margaret Thatcher had escaped death in the Brighton bombing by sheer chance, and the City of London banking district had been blown up twice.

Yet as a serious assault on the elite, Breivik's action left something to be desired. No one important was killed, injured or even greatly inconvenienced, which is what one would expect of a well choreographed psyop, not a well conducted act of anti-state terrorism.

So unless Norway's police come up with convincing evidence that Breivik acted either alone or with other genuine anti-state elements, a definite conclusion may be difficult to reach.

That the culprit is alive and in custody, is one feature of the case suggesting that Breivik acted independently. For where the evidence of state responsibility has been most convincing, what appear to have been designated patsies, wiped themselves out during the commission of the crime (e.g., 9/11 and 7/7) or were wiped out shortly afterwards (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald).

And these items just in:
Norway Terror Attacks a False Flag: More Than One Shooter on Island; Oslo Police Drilled Bomb Blasts; Was It NATO’s Revenge for Norway’s Decision to Stop Bombing Libya? Webster Tarpley
Then there's the Israel angle.
Was the Massacre in Norway a reaction to the boycott, divest and sanction Israel campaign? Gilad Atzmon
Craig Murray turns crazy conspiracy theorist
Truth? Where's the market for that? StefZ
Norway: Like-minded "cells" the real enforcement target? YaYa Canada


  1. This was an inside job. The prime minister is a Bilderberger.

    - Aangirfan

  2. Yes, it is difficult to rationalize this atrocity as anything but a false flag of some kind.

    Does anyone understand Norwegian politics?

    How come Norway is about to pull out of the Libya operation when Stoltenberg was so keen about it in March.

    And where, if anywhere, does Norway's decision to recognize an independent Palestinian state (if declared) come into this story?

    And how does the Breivik atrocity help anyone?

    As a warning to the government, by a foreign government?

    And, if so, a warning about what? Palestinian recognition, withdrawal from Libya?

    Or does it discredit the government's internal opponents?

  3. To answer one of my own questions, a recent survey indicated that most Norwegians want an immediate end to immigration.

    Breivik's atrocity may well have have a chilling effect on outspoken critics of immigration.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.