Now that some time has elapsed since the Norwegian shootings and the much overshadowed bomb explosion(s?) – also known in the mainstream media as ultra-right wing Christian terrorism linked to groups like the EDL (whether it is true or not) – do we remember all the incidental detail of the 22nd July and the following weekend?
In my mind I retain nuggets of information that, I was delighted to find, were also generated in real time by the Telegraph’s live reporting; this was indeed fortunate. In a world where so many people allow peer pressure to alter their remembrances to agree with a falsehood, some kind of open source semi-official record keeping of events is very useful for confronting the groupthink with.
The following are entries from the Telegraph’s live coverage on 22nd July:
17.39 AFP is reporting that Jens Stoltenberg, the prime minister, had at one point been scheduled to attend the event on Utoya Island (the rally was for his Labour party), but he did not go for some reason.
19.06 Jane Owen, the British Ambassador to Norway, tells the BBC that the prime minister’s whereabouts are not being released, but he is safe.
19.26 Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian prime minister, has said he has called a crisis meeting of his government this evening after the bombings, that will be attended by “several ministers”. He will also be meeting the leaders of the main political parties on Saturday. His whereabouts are still unknown.
On the 24th, there was this:
10.20 Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in Norway’s twin attacks that killed at least 92 and wounded 97, says he acted alone, police said this morning, after some witness accounts said a second gunman had taken part in a mass shooting. But police are still trying to establish whether there was “one or several” shooters at Friday’s attack on a Labour Party youth meeting on Utoeya island, northwest of Oslo, police commissioner Sveinung Sponheim told journalists.
17.24 Jon Snow from Channel 4 News asks why police knew the killer’s name by the time they had arrived on the island.
“…he surrendered the moment police called his name 3 minutes after they arrived. What we don’t know is how the police knew the terrorist’s name before they arrested him.”
If you take this information, and you throw Breivik’s drug usage into the mixture, what the scenario starts to look like is a classic case of sending a prepared patsy into a killing zone as cover for another job; i.e. this evidence makes it look as though Breivik was a patsy in an assassination attempt on the Norwegian PM.
Of course, at this juncture I understand that there is bound to be a deal of chortling amongst the readership. But stay yourselves for a second; I do not conclude that there was a plot to kill Jens Stoltenberg. The possibility is slim according to my line of thinking. I merely chose a dramatic option (for my own purposes) – one of many options that this specific permutation of the evidence suggests. Other permutations suggest various other possibilities – even a straightforward one that Breivik was a nutcase working on his own.
The point I am trying to make is that according to the mainstream media, there is no other possibility than the one that it pushes – which is, at a rough approximation and as crude as it sounds, that certain “white” people are terrorists too.
Moving away from this specific case, in general, and in the realm of the discourse, there is no other information to be considered than the data that supports the official hypothesis that drives the official agenda. “Conspiracy theory” is the label that is swiftly applied when there is any attempt to debate information that has been deemed inconvenient for the official line. It should be clear to everyone that the use of the label “conspiracy theory” is for closing down debate as much as the term “racist” is. When the label “conspiracy theorist” is used, it triggers the snigger response in so-called intellectuals and sophisticates according to their conditioning. Similarly, the term “racist” acts like a minefield sign to the feeble minded.
That so many people, who apparently possess an intellect that should render them useful to the cause of freedom, can be manipulated like dogs anticipating dinner is not a healthy thing if the country is ever going to be liberated. Swallowing the official line unquestioningly is to demonstrate a slave mentality.
Conspiracy theory does not merit the blanket discrediting it receives. It is, after all, a seeking of a version of events that takes into account the reality of established patterns of human behaviour; the history books tell us about what should be expected of the powerful and political. It matters not that we are supposed to be in an era of open government, plotting to acquire power is as secretive as ever it was at the highest levels; the compartmentalisation of the lower reaches ensures that the nefarious end is hidden from most participants (that most of them are morally corrupt by establishment design also helps). If we understand power-brokers and their role in our history, we should understand that there is commonly in existence a plot in secret that, as its secrecy denotes, is an abuse of their power, towards an end that is in their best interests, and against ours; in other words, criminal.
The discussion of journalistically witnessed or officially documented events, plans or polices that the establishment freezes out from the official account and refuses to acknowledge is the stuff upon which conspiracy theory suspends; what then, is wrong with conspiracy theory except that it is not mandated by officialdom? It lives or dies, like any scientific hypothesis, on real data. Who is it that gives the mainstream media its authority to reject one piece of information and retain another? The answer is: itself; it declares its own expertise and popularity, and in doing so it appeals to the vanity of its audience who, as individuals, rationalise (in their must-grovel-round-the-wireless mentality) that this is the place where I must invest my intellect, and receive self-validation through association with the output. These willing slaves in turn confer the significance back into the medium through their patronage.
At this point, the mainstream media can direct the willing slaves to exercise mental gymnastics and block out data that does not compute according to the official narrative.
As I wrote in these pages before, in the 20th century a plot was hatched to bring about Marxist revolution in Judeo-Christian countries where the people already had an interest in the hegemony, and the social classes had shared values. Political Correctness (PC) was conceived in the minds of power-lustful Marxist thinkers to create the social groundwork for revolution. The Gramsci/Lukacs evil bag of tricks was seized on by Progressives looking to implement the cultural element of the Marxist takeover of Britain (the collection around the state had already been embraced by a misguided population battered and altered by two world wars). Let me add now that the media is crucial in changing attitudes and controlling perception, and persuading submission of its consumers to the official Progressive agenda. Now, in the wake of the Norway massacre, we will see the State declaring counter-revolution (by which I mean actions or intentions to attempt to reverse the Marxist Statist Progressive Revolution) as terrorism. This, of course, to those unwilling to process and weigh certain evidence (such as the Andrew Neather admission of a plot to implement a flood gate immigration policy, or the Met Police’s “surprising injunction”) – to those asleep on the swaying bough – is an hilarious conspiracy theory.
If we don’t understand the reality, then we cannot fight it, and the good news is that there has been a break through; a tipping point has been reached. The power of the thought-controllers to stymie the acquisition, by the people, of evidence that is not officially permissible for consumption or deliberation is abating. In other places I do see indicators that lots of folks are looking to “conspiracy theory” to explain their reality, and because inherent in the practice is truth seeking, they must be finding the version of events that makes much better sense. With this, of course, comes an inversely proportional trust of the “authoritative” version; naturally, there would be contemplation as to why it should be the case that what sometimes seems blindingly obvious is so studiously avoided by the establishment media. The more the press is not trusted, the more their version of events will be rejected. Thus, with the turning of this vicious circle, what was until recently considered a terminal stitch-up will become unraveled.