The rush to blame Muslims..for the carnage,..hastily parroted by an onslaught of mainstream “terror experts,”..was a startling insight into how the propaganda..that fuels the war on terror is so unquestionably bounced around the echo chamber..of the corporate media.

It’s also a reminder that the mainstream press
instantly falls in line..with whoever mentions zionism
the establishment designates..the enemy du jour to be..at any given time.

Now that Muslims have been so vehemently demonized as terrorists, it’s the turn of so called “right-wing extremists,.. or anyone who disagrees with mass immigration,..loss of sovereignty and globalist financial looting,..to feel the heat.

The effort to smear European conservatives as unhinged radicals who harbor simmering urges for bloodlust..is now in full swing, and it’s a demonization campaign..firmly founded on the carefully crafted public portrayal of Anders Behring Breivik.

However,..it’s quickly becoming apparent that just as many eyewitnesses reported two gunmen..on the island where the rampage unfolded,..there are two different personas behind Breivik himself.
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=130515

Indeed, there are two different Facebook profiles
for Breivik,..one from before the massacre
and one..*from after.

The latter profile appears to have been embellished
and deliberately altered to emphasize the notion
that the gunman was motivated by his “Christian conservative” beliefs.

Compare the two profiles below (click to enlarge).
http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/july2011/250711facebook2a.jpg

The first one in Norwegian
was deleted minutes after Breivik’s identity became public.

The second profile in English
appeared after the original was deleted,
and became the de facto profile of the killer.

“Several things have been doctored up
to alter the suspects political views.

First a section titled “Philosophy” has been added to include “Christian,” and “Conservative.”

The media has used this to great lengths,”
notes the Council of Conservative Christians website.
http://cofcc.org/2011/07/norwegian-killer-facebook-hoax/

In the second profile, Breivik’s interest in Winston Churchill and Max Manus, the leader of the Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance, have been deleted,

presumably because they don’t fit with the psychological profile that Breivik was a right-wing neo-Nazi who had links with the English Defence League.

There was clearly manipulation
surrounding Breivik’s Facebook page after the attack

As Madison Ruppert notes, http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/analyzing-oslo-attacks-part-three-more.html

“Someone was active on Breivik’s Facebook accepting friend requests after the massacre took place.”

People were also tricked into registering on a fake Facebook page set up in support of the gunman’s actions.

Additionally, in a series of Internet postings, Breivik clearly characterizes himself not as a populist Christian conservative, as the media has attempted to push,

but as a Bill Kristol style neo-con,
an enthusiastic supporter of Israel,
attacking racists and accusing others of being “anti-gay”.

“None of the comments are extreme..or hint at a desire to commit violence,” notes the CCC website, adding that Breivik was a supporter of the website which was run by Hans Rustad, a former Jewish left-winger turned neo-conservative.

It seems as if there are two Breivik’s, the original, a socially liberal, pro-Israel neo-con, and the second post-massacre profile of a Christian conservative, white supremacist.

The second profile has clearly been embellished to push the notion that Breivik’s rampage was driven by his Christian conservative beliefs,

which is convenient given the fact that governments recently introduced the meme that white, Christian conservatives were the leading terror threat.
http://cofcc.org/2011/07/norwegian-killer-facebook-hoax/

Breivik’s character of an enraged psychopath intent on butchering as many people as possible in the name of his cause is also contradicted by people who knew him personally.

In an interview with Russia Today,
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-video-characterizes-white-americans-as-most-likely-terrorists/

Ulav Andersson, who worked closely with Breivik,
said that the killer showed behavior “absolutely nothing anywhere near that” depicted by the media’s characterization of him,

and that his apparent racism was never expressed in terms any harsher than mild and “mundane” annoyance at being rejected by women.

Andersson said that Breivik was not opinionated, “never came across as some kind of religious fanatic or anything,” and did not have a well developed ideology.

Adding that he never imagined Breivik would be capable of committing such an atrocity, Andersson says that he thinks Breivik was “brainwashed,”

a judgment which correlates with eyewitness reports..

continues

stating Breivik carried out what would have undoubtedly been an intense and stressful rampage with complete calmness and a blank expression on his face.

Andersson’s portrayal of Breivik seems to fit far more with the pre-massacre Facebook profile of the gunman as oppose to the post-massacre profile which seems to have been embellished to a significant degree.

A plethora of other questions continue to circulate surrounding Breivik and his motives. Why did this supposedly anti-Muslim crusader slaughter dozens of white Norwegian teenagers?

Why didn’t he target a mosque?
Why did this supposed “Christian conservative” list a television series that glorifies vampirism (True Blood) as his favorite show?

How did Breivik’s ties to freemasonry and his obsession with the Knights Templar play into his rampage?

Why did Breivik lift entire portions of leftist Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto and incorporate them into his own screed?
http://news.yahoo.com/norway-suspect-borrowed-unabombers-manifesto-200617817.html
Just like the Oklahoma City bombing,
which the case has been obsessively likened with,
the evidence is starting to point to a wider plot,
http://www.infowars.com/norway-terror-attacks-a-false-flag/

but concurrently there seems to be a deliberate effort to manufacture a profile of Breivik as a lone-nut psychopath who was influenced by racism, nationalism, Christianity, and a hatred for Europe’s predominantly neo-liberal elite,

who coincidentally..will reap
the greatest political benefits

from this tragic massacre.

@Is Mise:

Heh - I see it didn't take very long at all for you to "use it for your own agenda".

I haven't noticed anybody here talking about gun control, have you?

One Under God,
Three theories or I suppose "Memes" emerged in the first couple of hours after the attacks.
The first was the suggestion that an Islamic group had claimed responsibility, that evaporated as soon as Breivik was arrested.
The second was that it was a "hybrid attack", a collaboration between Neo Nazis and Jihadists.
The third, which actually emerged simultaneously with the second was that Breivik was actually the Right Wing Zionist blogger "Fjordman", this has subsequently been denied by this person's associates in the David Horowitz/Robert Spencer milieu.

Theory two is, on face value plausible, PC disinformation aside since 9/11 there has been one faction of the "Nazis" who actively call for co-operation between Radical Muslims and Radical European Nationalists in a "quid pro quo" where they'd simultaneously liberate Europe and re establish the Islamic caliphate. Whereupon the Muslims currently residing in Europe would return to freedom in their traditional lands and the New European Imperium would be installed.

However, as we know Breivik is most definitely not in that camp and he's not on the side of Egalitarianism or Ethno Nationalism either.

The rest you've covered in your posts, so there's no need for me to repeat it.

I honestly wouldn't go there if I were you, morganzola.

>>Isn't anybody besides suzeonline interested in what the terrorist wrote in his manifesto about Howard, Costello, Windschuttle et al?<<

One thing that should not result from this horror is a concerted attack on our freedom of speech. If you follow that path - x should not be allowed to say what he says because y might use it as an excuse to kill someone - we all lose. The Beatles would be responsible for the actions of Charles Manson, and so on.

Unless the words are deliberately and clearly incitement to violence or to crime - which is already an offence separate from freedom of speech - people should be allowed to express their opinions, however vile we may feel them to be.

It cannot be any other way. In this, I am in agreement with Guy Rundle, who (slightly edited) expresses it as follows:

"Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Bawer and others need to be relentlessly brought to account [not] for the actions of Breivik... [but] on the basis that their disregard for truth, and values most of us hold in common, have contributed to an atmosphere in which people can move from obsessive grievance to violence."

As Breivik's manifesto demonstrates, for some it can be a small step.