For the past few weeks the BBC have used the NOTW story to pummel their arch-competitor NI owned by Murdoch with quite a bit of success. Now the Oslo massacre has provided them with the opportunity to run with the meme that “far-right” terrorism constitutes a danger almost equal to Islamic terrorism and that Christianity is as dangerous as Islam. Almost as bad, the likes of William Hague plays along with the suggestion that the UK “may” have a terrorist threat from “the far right”. It’s all their Christmases (or “Wintervals”) come as one. There was an item on Today providing the author of “New British Fascism” to pontificate. Not sure where the BNP come into this one but with the BBC you can always be sure that they will find links. I am certain that when Jihadists attack next, the BBC will defuse any criticisms by saying that it is no different to “far right Christian” terrorism.
THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY
Bookmark the permalink.
Keep an eye on BBC linking Oslo terrorist to English Dfence League. The Times reports in headline that ‘Norwegian killer linked to extremists in Britain’ but explains it later thus ‘… it emerged that Breivik had claimed to have made contact with the English Defence League and suggested that the group destroy a British nuclear power plant’.
The BBC will presumably report this as Breivik and the EDL being in discussions if not actually making plans. I wonder what the EDL’s response was and if it was a flat ‘***k off’ if the BBC would report that.
I have actually read EDL’s official statements and it was a firm but articulate condemnation of the killing, the killer and all those who accuse them of being involved. In their statement, they utterly condemn all violence by any group for any purpose. I’m not trying to defend the EDL because, like hippiepooter, I have grave reservations about them, but this is the statement I read yesterday.
As far as their links to the killer, they claim that they don’t remember any meeting with him and if he was one of their 100,000 commenters on their site they would not be aware of him over any other. They also said that he couldn’t have had contact with them as he claimed he was trying to set up a Norwegian equivalent of the EDL, and if he had spoken to them he would have found out that one already exists.
I agree, the NDL (Norwegian version) have also issued a statement (on Friday even before teh full outrage became known and possibly even before the guy’s name was released) The attempted connection with NDL and EDL is simply using an opportunity to ‘attack’ those groups. I will point out though that the BNP are very quiet.
It would appear that The Mail have at least taken the trouble to ask the EDL what their opinion is:
“Stephen Lennon, who founded the group in 2009, said he was ‘sickened’ to learn of Breivik’s claims and denounced him as a ‘freak’”
Compare that with this screen shot, from a UAF FaceBook page, taken on the day that Osama was shot:
Very, very interesting.
This one from the ‘Muslim Defence League’ page:
‘The Mail have at least taken the trouble to ask the EDL’
Bloody DM and its ‘journalism’.
If it has not been RT’d amongst a select group of unblocked twitter followers, the news does not exist.
At least in a form the BBC recognises.
Of course, BBC-NUJ throws out propaganda against the EDL, but doesn’t record the EDL denials:
“Official Statement – Anders Brievik”
http://englishdefenceleague.org/official-statement-anders-brievik/
No further explanantion than………..
R 5Contrive breakfast,(just go through to 2hs 35)
a prolonged at least 15 mins, “im-moral equivalence”
piece, about “far right extremism, the danger of the far right
how prevent money is being used to warn the public about “far right” extremism, the misconception the majority of focus “al queda” it
is equally focused on the “far right”….we ve run an interesting scenario this weekend on.the far right, & a far right bomber
we have a phone in your call at 9.00am so your thoughts on……. with a small o) oslo.
phone in less than 5 mins old….reigious fervour, knights templar
= far right scenario…..followed by a UAF caller who has been on previously in phone ins…one to check out later.
Some beeboid on Radio 5 just reported that he’d attended some terrorist scenario in Stoke on Trent last week which surprise surprise involed an extreme right wing attack. Apparently (in passing) they also do them for Islamic extremism, but funnily enough I don’t ever remember the BBC reporting from one of THOSE.
You can bet now that any terrorist attack by Muslims in the UK (and it will be Muslims) will be seen as the far right by the BBC.
R4 Today a tidal wave of growing far rightery
<!– S ILIN –>Anders Breivik
<!– S ILIN –>the 1500 page “manifesto” the killer released before the attack. <!– E ILIN –>
David, if Hague has said there “may” be a danger of far right terrorism, he’s understating the danger considerably.
You only have to look at arrests and convictions in the last few years. And of course the BNP has links – it’s leadership is hardcore Nazi.
I am an opponent of the BNP. But I just cannot see how one can extrapolate that “the far right” constitutes a terror threat akin to the Jihad. I can understand how the IRA does but then they are good terrorists.
If any part of the BBC try to promote the idea that far right terrorism represents as much a threat as Islamist terrorism then of course, that’s agenda serving. As I generally avoid stepping my toe in the fetid ponds of the BBC such as TODAY and Newsnight then I’m less likely to come across such poison. From what I’ve listened to on R5L everything is broadly above board – on the World Service yesterday James Mendes was in Thought Police Uber Alles mode, telling the head of the Norwegian ‘neo-conservative’ site (for wont of a better phrase) that in the wake of this terrorist attack they should now close down.
I say ‘broadly’ with regard to R5L. This morning I heard Nicky Campbell refer to the terrorists’ views as “repugnant”.
No they’re not. I agree with 80-90% of his views. They’re perfectly legitimate. What is repugnant is his terrorism. The BBC should not be conflating his views with his terrorism. They never did with the goal of a United Ireland that PIRA besmirched with its terrorism.
I’ve just lobbed the following email Nicky Campbell’s way, which as his call-in only has 10 mins to go wont get an airing, but for what it’s worth:-
‘THE REPUGNANT VIEWS OF THE TERRORIST’The views of the terrorist are no more repugnant than the goal of a united Ireland that PIRA committed 30 years of terrorism for. It is the terrorism that is repugnant, in this case an act that exceeds the worst acts ever perpetrated by PIRA. Many people such as myself agree with 80-90% of the terrorists’ views on cultural Marxism and Islamism. Across Europe we’ve seen various attempts of the Marxist left within the system to criminalise those viewpoints with trials such as that of Geert Wilders. Nonetheless, we still live in a democracy, and the answer to the suppression of democratic rights is the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King, not the terrorism of this monster.
previous experience with the 5live inquisition, on your call, by their “vetters”, (one in particular if you oppose the narrative..you are passed to)….almost makes it not worth the effort.
do you seriously think no-one, wanted to oppose this drivelling narrative, offer objective views……hmmm BIASEDbbc
I totally agree. I think his views about mass-immigration, the rapid transformation of many cities across Europe and the reluctance of the ruling elite to listen to the electorate and do something about it, are shared by myself and most people I know, whether rich, poor, black or white.
The difference is, I prefer to write to my MP rather than go out and commit mass-murder.
I guess it’s his target which has surprised everyone. A lot of people would expect someone with his views, who was prone to mass-murder, to wander in to an Islamic ghetto and open fire, not target what I guess he sees as the next generation of traitors.
Whenever anyone says to me “I hate immigrants”, I tell them that it’s not them that you should hate, it’s the government, particularly the Blair/Brown one, so make your thoughts about their policies known by putting pen to paper and write to your local MP or a newspaper or a blog.
Mass-immigration, and the many social problems that come with it, are a symptom of both the left’s warped ideology and weak, liberal governance.
When you get David Cameron, the PM, making a speech saying we must control immigration and the next day the Deputy PM gets up and says that’s not official government policy (we know he’s from a LibDem minority party which believes in open borders!) even though about two thirds of the electorate wants tighter immigration control, what kind of government do we have? Where does Clegg think he gets the mandate and authority to override the PM policy and the views of the majority electorate? And what do you do if your MP is a LibDem? It would be a complete waste of time writing to him.
“No they’re not. I agree with 80-90% of his views. They’re perfectly legitimate. What is repugnant is his terrorism. The BBC should not be conflating his views with his terrorism. They never did with the goal of a United Ireland that PIRA besmirched with its terrorism.”
Hear hear
I’m no great fan of the BNP but I don’t think it is fair to characterise them as fascist, let alone Nazi. Fascism is hard to define, but there are clear differences to the BNP who are more far-right populist. I think using such terms by the left, and others, is a deliberate attempt to silence the BNP without actually dealing with them.
I agree to a certain extent, as someone mentioned earlier last week both Fascist and Nazi have very specific menaings. Also, I was wondering why they were ‘silent’, especially with them being mentioned along with EDL etc in association with the Norwegian shooter, but I note they are in the middle of a leadership election…
Fascism and Nazism have both very specific meanings and in a sense no meaning as an ideology. Fascism is really the regime of Mussolini and maybe a few other groups like the Spanish Falange(and it just a maybe because some are hesitant even to extend fascism to anything outside Mussolini’s regime.). Many, if not most, relevant scholars are hesitant to call even General Franco a fascist(though this doesn’t stop lefties refering to him as such while they give very inaccuate, one-sided coverage of the Spanish civil war.). Nazism is the Nazi party and those who specifically imitate it who are called neo-Nazis. As ideologies these are very vague and hard to spin down.
It must be said though that the attempt to describe Fascism and the Nazis as leftwing is also silly. They had elements common to groups of both the leftwing and the rightwing as well as those who are quite radical and more conservative. But more importantly leftwing and rightwing mean very little(which is another point against the BBC et al’s coverage in this story.). Really it is only convention that decides which group belongs on which side of the spectrum and these groups are conventionally rightwing. The problem is the guilt by association attempt(and perhaps the whole idea of the political spectrum.) of some(including some who call them leftwing mind you.) and not the fact that convention puts them on the right.
Whatever old criteria people used to place the Nazis (and by extension, the BNP) on the Right are outdated and no longer applicable. The definitions have changed. One may as well say that the Chinese Communists are far-Right because of their belief in the ethnic superiority of the Han and the ethnic cleansing they perpetrate in places like western China. Racism, generic xenophobia, and ethnocentrism have nothing whatsoever to do with personal politics.
Mrs. Duffy didn’t like them foreigners, and she’s as Left as they come. Time for new definitions or the argument goes nowhere.
Time to leave terms like Left and Right behind. Simply trying to pan off groups we don’t like on to the other side of the spectrum is silly. It is time that guilt by association and crude generalisations are left behind. That is how the argument goes somewhere David, not through trying to show the BNP are leftwing or rightwing.
Come on, many BBC’s reporters(and many of CNN’s and others.) behaviour shows how vile and virulent the constant appeals to guilt by association(like this rightwinger did something terrible so this makes all the right as good as accomplices.) and crude generalisations(like the right don’t care about the poor.) are. We combat this best, not by responding in kind and so continuing to fuel such an enivornment, but by showing we are better than this and just how underhanded and dishonest such tactics are.
Re- Islamic jihadist mass murders. e.g. of 7/7 London, INBBC does not link them to the Muslim perpetrators’ Islamic ideology; on the contrary, INBBC constructs a narrative claiming otherwise.
INBBC adopts a quite different approach to Breivik’s mass murders.
Given INBBC’s apparent interest in Breivik’s ideology, perhaps INBBC will now explore the Islamic ideology of the perpetrators of the 17,000 plus, acts of Islamic terror since 9/11 (- and I don’t mean another apologetic exploration by Muslim presenters, on the lines of 3/3 TV series, Mohammad, on INBBC 2 tonight).
BBC Five Live seems more than happy to take quite seriously the Norwegian loan murderer’s confused and unique quasi-Dan Brown political ravings.
The BBC is keen to delve into this story – because there’s apparently no multicultural downside for them.
It is early days yet, before this all come to court, but I assume there will be no great failing in the way the BBC covers it. My beef is with the way they cover Jihadist terrorism with constant pussy-footing, apologias and idealogical no-go areas.
5live phone in, 30 mins in psycho analyst 5 callers…khaled..ibrahim
brit muslim, UAF member………(edl..vastly unfair perception of muslims, the twisted narrative etc etc).
this should be…….a main piece here on B-bbc, an hr long example
For ‘balance’…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658664/Hunt-for-Britons-linked-to-Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik.html
Given the actual facts thus far, that headline seems one heck of a projection. Caution, investigation… fair enough. Scaremongering twaddle… typical.
So far, it seems the MSM has lost yet another plot seeking… another plot.
The only reasons can be ratings, aganda or both.
Because sensible news it sure is not.
I bet it’s ‘Richard’ Madeley!
He writes for The Express for crying out loud. What further evidence do you need that he’s a Nazi!
I look forward to laws making denigration of the Knights Templar and the burning of Breiviks manifesto an imprisonable offence, its the sensible way forward.
Descriptions of Breiviks manifesto as a rambling tome of political/religious and legal mumbo jumbo filled with hate and domination fantasies made me think of another book too.
Interesting that nobody challenged the Norwegian academic on ‘Today’ in his assertion that there are no ‘No Go’ areas in either UK or Norway. I’m sure there are parts of many towns in England where natives fear to tread at all.
Indeed: no obviously non-Moslem in their right mind would go near Brick Lane after dark. Mind you, there are any number of inner-London council estates which are no go areas for the police (day or night) let alone a respectably dressed, obviously English “civilian” – this is not solely an Islamic problem.
Er, apart from the hordes of young people who flock to the bars and clubs there.
That’s your idea of a ‘No Go’ area? Oh dear.
Brick Lane bars – hordes of white middle class left-wing students and other right-on wristband wearing pricks you mean Ben? Yeah. Full of them, flocking. Been there, seen it. That’s food-court multiculturalism, not the ethnic East End.
Your patronising “Oh dear” sign-off tells us all we need to know.
‘Brick Lane bars – hordes of white middle class left-wing students and other right-on wristband wearing pricks you mean Ben? Yeah. Full of them, flocking.’
Hah, you’ve done a poll of their political orientation? The reality is just young people going out to have fun like in lots of parts of London. You sound like a right laugh.
‘Sunday Times’ (2008):
“Muslim Britain is becoming one big no-go area. A bishop caused uproar last week by exposing ghettos of Islamist extremism. But Muslims everywhere are cutting themselves off from society in other, equally dangerous ways.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece
ALSO:
Waltham Forest – Sharia Zone.
Presumably you’ve not been down Brick Lane either George?
This Brick Lane?:
“Backlash at the mosque” (2010).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7437197/Backlash-at-the-mosque.html
Plans for Brick Lane ‘hijab’ arches pulled at eleventh hour
Ben’s taking time off from posting bilge on Dellingpole’s pages to practice a little trolling on behalf of the National Union of Guardian Readers. Go away Ben.
Because I have the audacity to call out posters on assertions that I know to be false (and most people would know to be). Thanks for the ad hominem attack though London Calling.
George, what’s your point? Is that your definition of a ‘No Go’ area? I’m not disputing there are attacks, but then many parts of London are dodgy (and dodgier still). But to say ‘no obviously non-Moslem in their right mind would go near Brick Lane after dark’ is laughable. It undermines any possible legitimate claims in other cases.
And for the record I’ve never read the Guardian.
I lived in Leman St in the mid-1990s. Once, during the dog days of August, on a Sunday afternoon,when there are no whites around, I happened to walk down Brick Lane. A cardboard roll of the sort that cloth for dressmaking is wrapped around was thrown at the back of my head, by one of a gang of Bangladeshi kids who were walking behind me. I was also mugged by a gang of about a dozen Bangladeshi yoths in Itchy-coo Park across he road from Brik Lane. Fortunately I was able to flag down a passing police car and the kids were apprehended. The area tended to be safe at times when indiges Brits were there in numbers.
I glanced through this Norwegian psychopaths manifesto and he actually discussed the definition of a Muslim no-go area at one point: i included such things as whether blonde girls in mini-skirs were likely to be harassed, people who were obviously, from their apearance, orthodox Jews or gay were safe, drunken girls after dark more likely to be raped etc.
As DV writes, it’s Winterval for the BBC. The conflation of “right wing”, “christian”, “conservative”, “reactionary”, “terrorism” on Today‘s interviews was a wholly predictable lefty-fest, I seem to remember in the days following 7/7 a stream of apologists for Islamic terrorism appearing on BBC outlets “deploring” the bombings but – always a “but” – saying to the nodding of heads by the BBC hacks that really it’s our fault for invading Iraq, supporting Israel etc etc. Somehow I don’t think that the BBC will tolerate any commenter who might opine – as Hippiepooter writes – that what is repugnant is the terrorism for which there is no excuse or justification, not necessarily this terrorist’s beliefs.
Left wing terrorism a la Baader-Meinhoff and the Red Brigades has only gone out of fashion because the intellectual terrorists have taken over the BBC and other institutions.
I mentioned in an early thread how Baader-Meinhoff and other terrorists conducted joint operations with the PLO, now their heirs conduct joint propaganda operations with Hamas.
A quick google check and I find them described by the BBC as an “urban guerilla group.” No prizes for guessing which side they were on then.
Excatly! A quick check through the available history of labour, BBC,Eu etc would provide a mounain of ex commies, trots, intellectual apologists for Red Army Faction etc.
Not to say present day Castro groupies. Support of his dictatorship is synonymous with the moral depravity of supporting terrorism in a democracy.
I think Daniel may have been referring to this piece:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6314559.stm
We see the phrase ‘terror campaign’, but besides that the phrase he mentioned and of course ‘militants’ (sic). There is also the meme that their beliefs were good but their actions not. To date, no suggestion of this meme being trundled out for Breitvic.
So too was “hostile” “reactionary””hard line” and “unapologetic” when applied to the “dogmatic and inflexible” Right of the Republican Party as they try to stymie Obamas Greek gifts to buy him another year up to next November.
The BBC correspondent used all those words and more in his short piece.
Such is the loaded laden bigotry and stupidity of the BBCs political and economic staffers and ciphers in the land of the Free.
I hope that the USA really send these pinkoes home so they can be reacquainted with Orwell and Craig re use of language.
Might be ready for Fox if they send them home quicker rather than Nov 2012
Sorry-this follows on from Umbongo above!
Well said, Umbongo. I’ll start taking the BBC seriously on this issue when they start wheeling out a series of talking heads justifying the mass murderer’s grievances the way they did after 9/11 and 7/7.
There will be no equivalent of the infamous 9/11 Question Time audience, which says a lot.
This Norwegian psychotic, battened onto an area where he could create the maximum damage, distorting debate in order to provide an alibi for his own sociopathic obsession. He did not ‘believe’ what he wrote, he ‘used’ it as a vehicle to act out a deeper, evil maladjustment. He corrupted it to suit his inner moral sickness.
The parallel is the Unabomber in the States.
The Unabomber battened onto the the views of deconstructionism and the sociology of industrialism.
This could equally apply to the Norwegian psychopath as it did to Kaczynski (the Unabomber).
“In a Wired article on the dangers of technology, titled “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Bill Joy, cofounder of Sun Microsystems, quoted Ray Kurzweil‘s The Age of Spiritual Machines, which quoted a passage by Kaczynski on types of society that might develop if human labor were entirely replaced by artificial intelligence. Joy wrote that, although Kaczynski’s actions were “murderous, and, in my view, criminally insane”, that “as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage. I felt compelled to confront it.”[66]
Apparently this lunatic quoted a good chunk of the Unabomber’s manifesto verbatim. The Unabomber wasn’t far-right, just a murderous lunatic who used political issues as incentive.
I dont think its too off-topic to highlight Vince Cable’s reference to ‘right wing nutters’ on the Andrew Marr show yesterday. AM’s stand-in didn’t bat an eyelid. If a guest had heaved the blame on the ‘left-wing’ nutters Obama has around him does anyone believe this would have passed without challenge in the same circumstances?
Cable knows perfectly well that on the BBC he is in a left-wing arena and comments like this are par for the course for BBC staff.
hippiepooter, this chimes with Craig’s post yesterday on the Oslo thread; I’m sure he won’t mind me copying and pasting here:
“Jane Little (this morning’s Sunday) seemed reluctant to accept the view of Jens Petter Johnsen, director of the Church of Norway national council, that Breivik doesn’t appear to have been a “conservative Christian” – surely a false conflation, on her part, of two distinct words – one relating to politics, the other to religion – found on the mass murderer’s very recently set-up Facebook page.
Rev. Johnsen mentioned Brievik’s cultural concerns about Islam and said that there’s no evidence that the murderous scumbag belonged to a “conservative Christian group.” Jane Little pressed on though, asking “But he clearly, you know, described himself as a conservative Christian…Is there a problem of Christian fundamentalism in Norway?” Mr Johnsen said there isn’t.
Alarm bells were raised with me though by a later feature on the U.S. Republican presidential race. Jane Little set up the report by talking about how “conservative Christians”…that term again…are influential in picking a candidate.
Just a coincidence? Or a bit of subliminal mischief at the expense of the American Right?”
Agree completely. Not only is the phrase ‘Right Wing Nutters’ allowed to pass without a caution it is happily picked up by the BBC as a sound bite. It is a one-street where the BBC is concerned.
I heard that item on Today, & it was as predictable as the movement of windscreen wipers. The words ‘conservative’ & ‘reactionary’ (& by implication, far-right) were of course mentioned to describe anybody with the temerity to question, however forensically & empirically, the true condition of enforced multiculturalism (particularly totalitarian Islam). Many people are tired of the BBC’s pretty mirage & its pathological refusal to countenance any even-handed debate on the absolutely crucial issues that are turning this country inside out, & the rest of Europe. That doesn’t make us gun-toting nihilists. I felt the cold horror of what happened in Norway as much as the next man. If anybody is a ‘denialist’ it is the BBC. Humphrys went on to dismiss the notion of ‘no-go areas’ in European cities. Perhaps he needs a whistle stop tour of France’s Zones Urbaines Sensible. This dismissal came from a man who was amazed Cardiff was a drunken madhouse on a Saturday night. Smugly out of touch with everything, aside from his ever-vigilant sense of entitlement, & hubristic moral superiority.
After the tragedy of Norway, I fear any opposition to the cultural Marxist juggernaut, so efficiently fuelled by the BBC, is going to have a thin time of it, for we are all far-right nutjobs now.
Remember that the BBC even refer to hardline Chinese Communists as ‘conservatives’.
And hard line Russian communists as “Right-wingers”. This briefly became the accepted term for them as well which has always astounded me.
Anyone who comes on the BBC now and is called ‘rigt wing’ will be asked to denounce the white christian terrorist actions and if anyone doesn’t follow the hive mind they will be demonised.
The BBC won’t simply expect people to denounce the killings (everyone would agree to that) but also the ideas behind it.
The very idea of a European multi cultural hell hole is causing problems all over Europe, most people are tolerant but do expect Muslims to fit it.
Funny that female beeboids happily dress up like a Guiness bottle when visiting Pakistan or other hard line Muslim Countries and follow the local barbaric customs, but don’t think Muslims living here should do the same.
Am I allowed to describe myself as “right-wing” now? I expect it would get me the same looks that reading the Mail on the tube does.
Has been the case since the Blair years that if you questioned the wisdom of unrestricted immigration you were merely a racist Little Englander. Now apparently you are “far right” and aligned with mass murderers. I saw Vince Cable quoted by bBC as how the US Congress is full of “right wing nutters”
The end of any possibility of sensible debate over politics – of you are not Liberal Left you are now a nutter as well as a Far Right Extremist.
The rise and rise of Left Wing Facism in Britain.
yes truly
“the world turned upside down”
wink wink
once again the perceptive m.phillips
You can thank the psychological culture at the BBC for this. Social Cohesion, my arse!
Let the BBC say what it likes re “right/far right” stuff…we know by now that they need no excuse to shut down debate.
So it is that the 8am news said that “lots of Twitter/Facebook” types would rather that the murderer was NOT allowed to speak in his defence/justification for what he did.
To think-whenever it comes to Venables, Hindley or Tanweer etc, there is no end of research, criminologists and apologists like Sereny and Wyre(RIP) in oreder to explain away the atrocities…lessons to be learned surely…and good livings for publishers and film makers as well too!
In the case of thie bloke though-clearly he has nothing to say about Islam and the collapse of the idea of a Europe NOT driven to a lime green fascist dictatorship by rose pink lefties with big words and unfettered access to the BBC/MSM.
Not a bit of it-Fortuyn was silenced in another contexy, but at least he WAS silenced…which seems to be all that the media and Twitter types require.
Ideas are dangerous-but more so when you can`t say them freely and safely.
Seems that THIS is the real Inconvenient Truth for our times…and it will not be allowed to infect the nations children in schools, unlike Gores straw man of late!
Today R4. We heard psychologist Ian Stephen, sounding uncannily like something to do with the Scottish SWP, sorrowfully opining insights into Breivik’s motivation, namely his contradictory-sounding desires to re-Nordify Norway and simultaneously ‘take over the world.’
Oh noes! not another one who wants to ‘take over the world.’
Psychology refresher courses include a science-fiction module, and a Protocols of the Elders of Zion module. (Joke.)
Of course it is possible that Breivik actually wishes to Nordify the whole world; pass the peroxide, Percy.
But what claptrap. Surely Justin Webb can’t have taken it seriously?
“The most scary document I’ve ever read.”
“Ever read the Hamas Charter?” I thought I heard Webb ask, but I was mistaken. It must have been my own paranoia making me hear voices again.
But hang on, the man suddenly started to say something sensible about Breivik’s psychopathic tendencies and psychological problems. But guess what, false alarm. Not the ones that manifested themselves in a massive killing spree. No, he meant the ones that caused him to feel: “A hatred of everything non-Nordic, and to detest immigrants”
Justin also started to say something sensible. “A lot of people hold these views” he said, but they don’t necessarily slaughter hundreds of innocent people, but he couldn’t resist mentioning Timothy McVeigh and ‘some others’, completely forgetting to include Baruch Goldstein.
I should have mentioned the intro.
Matthew Collins, director of education of Searchlight Trust monitoring fascism and the extreme right.
“Extremists spend a lot of time on the internet, talking and chatting to each other. Keyboard warriors!”
I’d better get my coat.
Sue
5live was awash this morning too
5 live Breakfast ,(2h.35 mins in)
5 live Breakfast your call
deserving of Bbbc article all of its own
As with Islam Not BBC (INBBC):
Arab world “insulted” by suspicion of Islamic terrorism in Norway attacks
Are they insulted that one Muslim group claimed responsibility? Were they insulted when they danced in the streets after 9/11?
The Norwegian Prime Minister just now told Sopel that the mass murderer acted alone, planned it alone. Sopel, on the other hand, had to challenge him with hearsay that the mass murderer might have contacted some guy one time at one point about some undisclosed subject, and suggested that this is proof that there is an “international connection”.
The BBC Narrative on this has been quite consistent. In spite of every single report from other news outlets, as well as statements from the mass murderer himself, the Norwegian police, and the Norwegian Government, that he acted alone, the BBC is hell bent on making you think he had accomplices who are still at large and that there is a larger group of people waiting to do this again.
Sopel again tried to stoke fear and anger against extreme right-wing phantasms who are “threatend” by “liberalism and multiculturalism”.
Funny how this is the exact opposite of how the BBC treated 7/7 or that attempted bombing of a London night club, or the Times Square Bomber, just to name three examples.
‘had to challenge him with hearsay’
It’s what the tw@tospehere is alive with, hence BBC ‘news’
New info now says that the mass murderer bought some “materials” from a guy in Poland. If he bought equipment of some kind, this is hardly the same thing as a co-conspiritor or the scary “international connection” that Sopel suggested.
Melanie Phillips is a big girl and needs no one to spring to her defence better than she can do herself, but it’s worth checking out her latest post as regards how some are spinning a tragic event in Norway to make petty capital and settle scores here.
MelanieLatest Melanie Phillips Dozens of writers cited in Norway psychopath’s ravings. So why am I being singled out? Atrocity ignites left pathology. bit.ly/obQpUQ
I suspect her recent perceived affront/relegation means here on BBC outings may well be limited, but I think the purge of ‘extremism’ could also extend to the bitter little creeps who the BBC seems to have no problem populating any ‘comment’ slot with.
I hold them, and by association (if not word and deed on their own account), the BBC as if not more accountable than most for using propagandistic techniques to inflame social tensions.
http://fullfact.org/blog/norway_attacks_manifesto_breivik_telegraph_guardian-2844
leohickman Leo Hickman 1st + last time I’m likely to say this: I agree w/ @MelanieLatest. Let’s not equate this madman w/ all people he quotes
Good of the guy from the Graun. Can’t imagine what made him do that.
I think her blog has crashed!
I get that too. I automatically assumed, in my paranoid state, that she has had it taken down pending investigation by the Thought Police. Probably not, but it shows how much I distrust this rising tide of Left-Wing dicatorship.
This was bound to happen. Rather than a large group of people who are sympathetic to the mass murderer’s cause waiting in the wings to act out, there is a much larger group of people waiting for exactly this kind of cudgel with which to beat their ideological opponents. Far more senseless damage will be done to innocent people by Leftoids releasing their pent-up anger than by any who are concerned about multiculturalism.
Okay, so apparently the lunatic claims there are others in his “cell”. I’ll believe it when I see arrests of people with caches of arms and explosives.
Here it comes: anyone who expresses concern about multiculturalism and the expansion of Islam in Europe and Britain must be considered a potentially dangerous extremist. The BBC News Channel is setting the stage for that Narrative right now.
Beware: Anything any of you say on this blog is now potentially incriminating evidence for a spiteful defender of the indefensible or actual lurking BBC employee to rush to the police. That’s the culture the BBC is espousing right now on air.
Yes; if anything, BBC-NUJ’s political agenda of:
mass immigration-‘multiculturalism’-Islamisation-EU supremacy,
– has been apparently muted until now.
British political elite (inc INBBC) will fall in line, no doubt, with Islamic demands to end, globally, any criticism of Islam:
Secretary of State Clinton tells Islamic organization dedicated to crushing free speech that Islam and the West can agree on tolerance
The BBC are making hay while the sun shines, having a ball attacking and smearing the right, its essential that they use the shelf life of this tragedy to effectively destroy their political enemies by associating the entire right wing with this lone whacko and that is what the evidence shows so far. A lone whack job.
When the Giffords mass murderer could not be linked with the right, he became a non person for the BBC, as we saw clearly they went from turbo charged fanatical attacks on the entire right wing to nothing, nada, ziltch. When they couldnt pin the blame on the right, which BTW they did from the first hour of the shootings they simply stopped coverage of the mass murders. This event funnily enough highlighted the BBC narrative perfectly.
It does not matter what the evidence shows, what facts emerge later,what the actual truth is. To the BBC these killings are a heaven sent opportunity to destroy the reputation of the entre right wing. In fact if the left could choose the most perfect way to destroy the right, if they could have designed a way to permanently destroy the right as a political force then this mass killing wold be the perfect vehicle.
The story is perfect material for the BBC isnt it? And you can bet the farm that they will exploit it to the maximum possible. BTW the trial may go ahead in secret now, I wonder if the killer is going to say things that the establishment would rather not be heard?
Cassandra, you bet he would, & the beebesque Norway media
wouldn t have it,(& i bet there was a secret beebo/guardian pant wetting session, at the possible mileage available)
Very very sadly, this is “too good”(maybe the wrong words) an
opportunity for them to miss, riding on emotion has always been used before, & will be this time,
The socialists will make as much capital as possible, out of this tragedy, to be sure.
hey, checked on M.Phillips blog too, i think theres a frenzy about
her being mentioned,(mind you so was Clarkson), all down at press.
…..& a fair question?…what are these , socialists activist pro palestinian youth camps anyway, sounds like something akin to 30s bloody Germany
noggin, I’ve been thinking the same about these camps. All that’s missing appears to be the brown uniforms. They’ve certainly got the political indoctrination the same, as well as blaming the Jews for all the world’s evils.
It’s something that I think is very creepy and should be examined more closely by right-thinking people once the dust has settled on the tragedy.
(I shouldn’t need to say it but should Dezzie or his chums come back from licking their wounds about the Murdoch/Cameron failure and start accusing me of anything as a result of what I’ve said here – Of course I don’t think their politics deserve this. This was a crazed, evil man who should be strung up by his testicles for what he did. Just as evil as the 7/7 bombers etc.)
a nation in mourning, very very moving
& on the point of “making as much capital”,
there has been a socialist labour party rally today..
i am unclear about details
As a follow-up to ‘RGH’s comment at 10:23:
“Norwegian Terrorist Anders Behring Breivik Plagiarized ‘Unabomber’”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/norwegian-terrorist-anders-behring-breivik-plagiarized-unabomber/
The left are really reaching on this one. If they dig deep, enough into the darkest extremes of the neo Nazi movement they might find some psychopathic thugs who wouldn’t be too upset about a terrorist attack on a mosque or a Muslim religious school.
But this Norwegian madman massacred white, blonde, blue-eyed Christian teenagers. Not even the most depraved right wing Nazi is going to support that.
I possess a copy of Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Does this make me a dangerous right winger?
I await confirmation from the BBC that this book is still acceptable reading.
Well he was conservative. He was a Christian.
Ergo a fundamentalist Christian farrightextremist anti-multcult nutter.
See what you can get when you use Beeboid methodology? It’s easy peasy.
“As for the BBC, I am not in the least surprised that it has denounced Anders Behring Breivik as – yes, you’ve guessed it – an extreme Right-winger. After all, Left-wingers like the Baader Meinhof gang don’t kill people, do they? There was time, too, for a bit of Christian-bashing and not too much thought about the doctrines of Christianity. Then Breivik’s views on Islam (similar to Prime Minister Putin’s views on Chechnya) and those on immigration (shared by Pol Pot and Mao) were used to fit him up as a Nazi and therefore an extreme Right-winger. The only bit missing from the charge sheet is that we do not know if he was a climate change denier and, like Tony Benn, a critic of the European Union.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100098697/being-right-wing-is-about-freedom-not-violence/
Good old Tebbitt. I forgot about the “climate change denier” angle! That would really be the icing on the cake.
Gavin Esler just allowed the rep from Democrats Abroad to tell the lie – which we all know is a lie, and the BBC has told it more than once before – that raisng the debt limit is “routine” and only this one time is a stance against raising it considered political intransigence.
A reminder to everyone here and any lurking BBC employees who might want to stop your colleagues from allowing this lie again:
In 2006, all Democrats – including Senator Obamessiah – voted against raising the debt ceiling. But that was when Boooooosh was in charge, so it doesn’t count, right?
The Obamessiah’s own words on the subject at the time:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Source: Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, S.2237-8, 3/16/06
Truer words were never spoken. How about it, BBC?
“I have been away from the Internet for the weekend, and return to find myself being fitted out for a supporting role in Friday’s evil slaughter in Norway.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272617/islamophobia-and-mass-murder-mark-steyn
Indeed. From what I learned on the BBC News Channel today, if you read sites like JihadWatch or Pamela Gellar – both mentioned as being associated with the mass murderer’s views and goals – you are part of the problem.
A Left-wing witch-hunt of their opponents, paid for by the License Fee. Soon anyone who isn’t of the Liberal Left will be thrown into the village pond to check if they float or not. FFS where is Chris Patten? Wake up you dozy fraud!!
Quite, i agree about Patten, he IS a dozy fraud, lazy too. He is left-wing anyway, so is of little use in sorting the BBC out. Cameron is a despicable fraud as well, and he’s the PM, be very afraid.
Cameron is now examining “right wing” terrorist threats. So where have these “right wing” threats come from all of a sudden? If they were there before the Norway massacre, then why didn’t he concentrate his efforts on them then? If they have suddenly apperared, where have they come from?
Cameron will say and do anything that he thinks will please the media. He is after all a PR man and that is all.
Horowitz: The Character Assassination of Robert Spencer
Pamela Geller strikes back at NY Times for tying her to Oslo shooter
‘Cranmer’:”The demonisation of the Right ”
[Extract]:
“And so we arrive at the unquestionable BBC state orthodoxy and narrative of enlightenment. It is ‘spin’, but of such an Orwellian subliminal manipulation of the vernacular that any contrary utterance strikes a chord of jarring dissonance, and the speaker or writer is cast into political, social or spiritual oblivion. Norman Tebbit, Simon Heffer, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Daniel Hannan, Peter Hitchens, John Redwood, Melanie Phillips, The Freedom Association… These are the new ‘fascists’ of the Right; they exist at the periphery of social acceptability, while the fascistic tendencies of those left-wing groups which seek to intimidate and silence any reasoned protest against socially-liberal, ecumenical, europhiliac multiculturalism are completely ignored.
“It appears now that if you believe in small state, low tax policies; are fiscally conservative; oppose on-tap abortion; support the traditional, nuclear family; seek to limit immigration; support withdrawal from the EU; advocate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief, you are without doubt a racist, bigoted zealot, and almost certainly a ‘right-wing extremist’ or a ‘right-wing nutter’. ”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/07/demonisation-of-right.html
I’m sorry but this is true. The left – with huge help from the BBC – have won all the public arguments. When Tory ministers have to refer to all public spending as ‘investment’ you know we have all woken up in hell. Only in a secret ballot – such as the overwelming anti-AV vote – do the majority now dare to speak.
Well put. But what do we actually do about this state of affairs? Any ideas? The devil in me would advocate a military coup, a rounding up of the left and massed airlift to Somalia to dump the idiots there, and they can whine and wring their hands for evermore, or until a militia man uses them as target practice. I am joking am i?
Always best not to listen to the devil.
I have just watched the 10 o’clock news on BBC1.
Nice little hatchet job on the BBC against the EDL.
It mentioned Breivik claiming links with the EDL and then noting he had some differences with them, but the BBC did not spell them out.
Then we had quotes from some ‘anti-fascist’ organisation hiting at links.
But surely, if the EDL is to be named and slated, the BBC should have featured an EDL spokesman as balancing quote.
But there was no balancing comment.
Beeboids need to realise why Breivik has his differences with the EDL.
As he said on his manifesto:
The EDL are in fact anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. They have many members and leaders with non-European background (African and Asian)…EDL and KT (Brievik) principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically…The EDL harshly condemns any movement that use terror as a tool, such as the KT. This is why, we, the KT, view the EDL as naïve fools.’
So there we have it, Norway’s mass killer brands the EDL as “naive fools” because they are anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi!!!
well i did see newnight, which had a “paxman with”…session
with stephen lennon, he reiterated, almost entirely that piece.
paxman kept pushingthe beebo narrative, in the end being told
“well do you want to deal with wild speculation or fact”, i noticed
a wee beebo “build up” 🙂 to the interview too, pushing facebook pages & the like.
in the end, mr paxman was floundering quite badly, & on mr lennon s concerns about the possibility,( if the underlying issues are not addressed & branding everyone with those concerns nazi or mad) of a terrible act being committed here?
paxman went for “gold”
sounds you(edl) are warning us, sounds like a threat
……..tsk tsk beebo…impetuous impetuous.
actually lennon voiced a fair point, but considering the present timeframe it was always going to be seized for a tenuous link
& i would still like to know more about, the “anti semitism” issue from a few weeks back