By Paul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet.com | Jul. 25, 2011
Given the fact that the establishment media got it spectacularly wrong by instantly jumping to the conclusion that Friday’s deadly attack in Norway was the work of Al-Qaeda Muslims, placing complete trust in the details emerging about gunman Anders Behring Breivik would be foolish, especially since there are innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions that need to be studied before a fuller picture of what motivated the bloodshed can be established.
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 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.
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). 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.
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, “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.
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, 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 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?
Just like the Oklahoma City bombing, which the case has been obsessively likened with, the evidence is starting to point to a wider plot, 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.