tip off

The Breivik manifesto and the Monckton connection

Conspiracy theorists can easily be dismissed or even laughed off as unthinking, sometimes paranoid ideologues with a tainted view on society.

Their language is often wrapped around power and freedom and speaks of global threats to undermine “our” way of life.

Some outspoken deniers of the risk the world faces from human-caused climate change will often evoke such rhetoric, claiming efforts to legislate to cut emissions of greenhouse gases are socialist or communist plots to redistribute wealth.

But most who believe this rhetoric would never think of turning to force. Anders Behring Breivik did.

The 32-year-old Norwegian Christian fundamentalist is facing trial for the massacre of 76 people in a shooting and bombing attack in Oslo.

Revealed in his online manifesto is a deep paranoia of “Marxists” and of Islam. But Breivik also accepted the conspiratorial thinking of some climate sceptics.

In the manifesto, Breivik cites “environmentalist organisations” as being “smoke screens” for “cultural Marxists”. He also includes in this bracket, groups that advocate for animal rights, human rights, feminism and anti-racism

In a section of his manifesto entitled “Green is the new Red — Stop Enviro-Communism!”, Breivik writes:

The neo-communist agenda uses politicised science to propagate the global warming scam in order to implement their true agenda; global Marxism.

You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world.

They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist — solutions to a problem that never actually existed.”

One section of Breivik’s manifesto points readers to a video clip of Lord Christopher Monckton, the climate change sceptic who is nearing the end of an Australian tour supported by mining magnate Gina Rinehart, The Climate Sceptics political party and part-funded by the Association for Mining and Exploration Companies.

The video is an excerpt of Lord Monckton’s October 2009 speech to Bethel University in St Thomas, Minnesota. The comparison to Breivik’s manifesto is chilling.

In the video, Lord Monckton evokes former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the fall of the Berlin Wall and suggests moves to kerb greenhouse gas emissions is cover for the creation of a global government.

Referring to the 2009 UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which was just weeks away at the time of his speech, Lord Monckton said: “A world government is going to be created. The transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries in satisfaction of what’s called coyly a climate debt because we have been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we have been screwing up the climate — we haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.

Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.”

Lord Monckton told the audience: “In the next few weeks, unless you stop it (the signing of the Copenhagen accord), your president will sign your freedom, democracy and prosperity away forever. It’s here in your great nation,” he said.

It is here that perhaps at this 11th hour at the 59th minute at the 59th second you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty.”

In the weeks before his Australian tour at a conference in Los Angeles, Lord Monckton displayed a swastika on a large screen next to a quote from former Australian government climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut, accusing him of holding a “fascist” point of view.

Crikey called Lord Monckton this morning, but before we had time to ask a question, he said: “Having seen what that website (Crikey) is about I am disinclined to speak to you,” and then immediately hung-up.

But Lord Monckton’s rhetoric — as stirring and inspiring to some as it so obviously is — does not stand alone.

In November, UK Daily Telegraph columnist James Delingpole will tour Australia touting his book  Watermelons — The Environment Movements True Colours. Delingpole, an ardent climate sceptic, says his book shows how environmentalists are “green on the outside, red on the inside”.

Other high-profile Australian commentators have echoed such sentiments while promoting Lord Monckton.

Recently retired Liberal senator Nick Minchin revealed that he too believes environmentalism is a cover-story for communism. In 2009, speaking about global warming he told the ABC’s 4Corners.

For 10 years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting peoples’ innate fears about global warming and climate change to achieve their political ends.

“For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the Western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.”

On Thursday at an event in Melbourne, the Institute for Public Affairs continues its promotion of a series of speaking engagements by Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus.

Among the titles of his talks at cities across Australia, there has been “Climate change the dangerous faith”, “Climate change a new ideology” and “The mass delusion of climate change”.

If the horrific events in Norway have told us anything, it is that such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.

  • 1
    Len Lambeth
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    They don’t care.
    They will spout their bile without regard for the consequences, just as Phoney Tony will say anything to get into power.
    Glenn Beck compares the youth camp on Utoya island to the HitlerJugend.
    Monckton calls Ross Garnaut a fascist.
    Alan Jones and “Juliar” - it’s all grist to their mill.
    There is no reasoning with maniacs like these.
    The people who manipulate them and feed their paranoia are a threat to democratic society.
    Perhaps we need a small “l” liberal counterattack - a dirty tricks unit. Carefully planted stories about the misbehaviours of the public figures, referencing London cottages etc.
    Unfortunately we’re too nice for that.

  • 2
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    If the horrific events in Norway have told us anything, it is that such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.”

    It may have “told” some, but it has simply reminded the rest of us. You need look no further than the leadership of Germany in the 1930s for perhaps the prime chilling example of minds being shaped by conspiratorial rhetoric.

  • 3
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    The scale of the mass murder in Norway would pale into insignificance compared to the scale of future climate change-triggered disasters, including extreme weather events, yet the ideology underlying them is the same …

  • 4
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways”

    It cuts both ways. Paranoid fantasies proliferate on the Left as well as the Right.

    Breivik’s “Mein Kampf” praises Howard’s bigoted refugee policy and Windschuttle (ex-Trot turncoat).
    It was the Howard govt. who invited Mark Steyn here, remember? Adolf Beivik loves Mark Steyn. Who’s Mark Steyn? Only the most toxic columnist-bigot to penetrate the respectable Right in decades. The Spectator finally got rid of him. I think even Pox News dumped him.

    Climate extremists like Savonarola Hamilton (“suspend democracy”) , Simon Chapman (both publicly funded academic propagandists) et al, feed Rightwing paranoia. The far Right capitalises on this - and worms its way into the leadership of many groups resisting climate hysteria- such as victims of wind turbines. I talked to the new Senator Madigan before anyone in Canberra. He makes Steve Fielding look like a gay rights advocate, but anti-wind groups are glad of his vote. As I said repeatedly on Crikey, this guy is downright creepy. Anyone who hates coffee is creepy.

    Likewise an outfit called the Australian Environment Foundation exploits rural distress. The AEF pushes guns, hunting and an extractive anti-environmental attitude in the bush. They are also exploiting rural distress at the attack on basic human rights suffered by wind victims.

    And what do we find on Crikey (and even on 4 Corners last night)? Relentless promulgation of climate extremism and ridicule of any opposition whatever. I’ve put up with this for over two years. The trashing of people’s basic rights in the bush is a Crikey trademark.

    The Right benefits, both the lunatics and the parliamentary Right.

    The loser is the environment.

  • 5
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Geez, by their reckoning, I’m Moscow Red (a Murobond paint colour and quite lovely!).

    Thing is, if Breivik had the world he wanted, eventually it wouldn’t tolerate him either.

    I have a friend who thinks the Holocaust is made up - late 30s, European parentage, should know better. It’s astonishing. But I don’t think that person would get a gun and shoot people. Thank God.

    Maybe the problem is our irresponsible use of language - I heard a right-winger complaining about that just yesterday. As Readfearn notes “such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.”

    I’m rambling. I’ll go now. To advocate for non-human animal rights, human rights, womens issues, and anti-racisim.

  • 6
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    If Andrew Bolt had written an article in like vein, and attempted to make such links in the reverse direction, it would have been thoroughly trashed by the true believers.

    But I think I now understand - the Hoddle Street massacre, the Port Arthur massacre, and so many others were all triggered by global warming sceptics. Possibly even the Wars of the Roses due to glacial changes causing thermal runaway of the brains of the warring families.

    All this in a country where it is obvious that Julia Dullard’s CT is a wealth distribution exactly as postulated by the Monk and others.

    Quote “such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.” That’s it, I’m removing the TV, banning the kids from getting fiction books at the library, and no more watching the footy with the crowd calls of “kill the umpire”.

  • 7
    Mark Duffett
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Julia Gillard and Bob Brown support motherhood. Breivik supports motherhood. Clearly then, Gillard and Brown share some responsibility for the Norwegian massacre.

    Why not? It’s precisely the same logic as is being implied by this piece.

  • 8
    Matthew Greensmith
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Can we avoid the use of an insane whacko’s actions to justify thought crime accusations on those we don’t like?

    The summary of this article seems to be that Breivik and Monckton have a demonstratable connection in their ideology. That ideology is one of the excuses Breivik used for his actions. Therefore Monckton should hold some level of culpability. Therefore we should supress similar ideologies for fear of them creating another Norway tragedy.

    I apologise if this was not the intent of the article, it was certainly how it read to me.

    My critique? firstly its a false equivelence. It is not intellectually justifiable to argue that the viewpoint created the action, and that if the “…the conspiratorial thinking of some climate sceptics.” was not a factor the whole mass murder thing may not have happened. Likely if you took away all Breivik’s stated reasons for his actions they would just be replaced with a different laundry list.

    Secondly the argument is specious reasoning, using correlation as causality. Brievik is a monster, Brievik and Monckton share a philosophy, therefore Monckton is a monster. All dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog. Monckton (et al.) may be a monster, he definitely seems to at least be prone to some douchebag behaviour. This makes the proffered argument easier to accept; it does not though make it correct.

    Thirdly, having looked briefly at Graham’s blog and his general opinion on Monckton there may well be a little compliance bias driving the reasoning in this article. Monckton uses inflamatory rhetoric linking opinions he doesn’t agree with to monstrous actions (e.g. linking swastika to Garnaut). This article descends to his level rather than rising above it. “Never argue with an idiot. He’ll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”

    Reductio ad Hitlerum

  • 9
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Spin kills. Free speech must be diluted with responsibility.

  • 10
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Apart from anything else, I would have thought that Marxism/Communism as a workable way of doing things disappeared with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Its like reading an article from the cold war….and just as creepy.

  • 11
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps Graham, if you were to refer to the man as Christopher Monckton-he is not really a peer-you might help to de-fang the beast.

    Why is it that all religions and all extremist fundamentalists have it in for women? I think Anders Breivik said something about having ‘a couple of whores’ the night before he pulped parts of Oslo. Why oh why do women tolerate this attitude?

  • 12
    David Hand
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    What a stupid, ill thought out article. A mass murderer loves his mother. I love my mother.

    You call the Greens ultra left agenda a conspiracy theory. Just read the biographies of Bandt and the Green Senators, mate.

  • 13
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Mark Duffet, not to put words in Redfearn’s mouth but isn’t the contention that dishonest, inflamatory speach is irresponsible rather than Monkton may as well have loaded the gun? May be a long bow but not quite as reduced as you’ve put it.

    Still A more diisturbing though is that this maasacre has had the desired effect of getting Breivik’s manifesto read and discussed by lots of people.

    While I’m on my hind legs, can someone please tell me just what’s so wrong with socialism? Seems to work ok in this country where we all pay into a central fund to fund social infrastructure. And why does the right hate wealth distribution from the west (which has wealth) to the third world (which doesn’t) or but is only to happy to have the pipe flow in the other direction?

  • 14
    Catching up
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    It can happen here. Norway is a country not unlike ours. It is proud of it’s democracy. It sees itself and it’s people as being friendly and outgoing.

    If what we are seeing on the news, the Norwegians are confronting what they are facing, not with anger or seeking revenge, They are meeting the crisis in their country with love.

    Over 100,000 thousand have turned out in a city of 600,000. They were still coming when the report was made.

    They are not armed with outlandish signs, they are not screaming for revenge.

    They are meeting the disaster with quiet support for the victims and their love ones.

    They believe hate is to blame.

    They believe love is the answer.

    Hate has never solved anything.

    As the Norwegian PM said the answer is respect.

    Can we learn in this country before a similar calamity occurs, or are we as children and adolescents that have to learn the hard way.

  • 15
    Len Lambeth
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    I sometimes wonder if the rabid right are able to do any joined-up thinking at all.
    They attack anyone who stands up to them with hyperbolic smear and sneer, ad hominem attacks and stupid sloganising - “nanny state” “political correctness” “Juliar Dullard” “watermelons - green outside, red inside” - but they won’t, or can’t, engage with the real argument.
    The point of the article is that Monckton, Minchin, Glenn Beck, et cetera ad nauseam … have so polluted political discourse that they facilitate and direct the lunatic, through the atmosphere they create.

    It is intellectually justifiable to argue that the viewpoint facilitated the action. Graham Readfearn does not rely on mere correlation, but clearly delineates the causality.

  • 16
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    GRAHAM: Which organisation is it that invites these awful people out here to lecture? Is Christopher Monckton entirely supported by Gina Reinstone? Sorry, hardt.

  • 17
    Mark Duffett
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    SBH, yes, in going for pithiness, I exaggerate somewhat to make the point. Matthew Greensmith said what I meant, only at somewhat greater length and a lot better.

    The other problem with blaming the ideology for the Breivik outcome is that “inflammatory speech” is hardly confined to the far Right. Climate change activist Clive Hamilton springs to mind. It’s not that big a stretch to imagine some deranged person taking his calls for suspension of democracy, direct action etc. seriously enough to attempt mounting their own violent revolution, going to war on behalf of future generations.

  • 18
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    If a pot is boiling over on the stove, you turn down the heat. You don’t douse it in gasoline. But gasoline is exactly what the right-wing commentators are pouring on right now - deflecting blame and doubling down on “it’s all the left’s fault” conspiracy theories. No self-awareness at all.

    Progressives are held responsible for every silly left-leaning idea going back to Lenin and Marx, no matter how tenuous the connection. If that’s the case, then fair’s fair - the right have to wear Breivik and his inevitable Australian copycats. You don’t get to avoid responsibility for your own monsters while criticizing the left for ours. Don’t like it? Then turn down the heat. Stop adding to the problem.

  • 19
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    quizzical…where it is obvious that Julia Dullard’s CT is a wealth distribution exactly as postulated by the Monk and others.

    Explain please, I certainly have not heard Abbott explain it. I have heard Abbott poncing around the country, lies and misinformation gushing forth without hardly a word of challenge from his adoring media pack.
    Perhaps you have some decoding device that unlocks the message of this wealth distribution Abbott postulates.
    I understand 500 polluters will be charged for polluting the atmosphere and lower and middle class earners, plus benefit recipients will be compensated to cover rises in charges. Said increases in benefits and tax reductions will be higher than the estimated cost of living rise. Basic down to earth understanding I know, but understanding.
    I await with interest to read the Leader of the Oppositions understanding of carbon pricing. Should be a great read given his many varying and contradicting statements on the subject.

  • 20
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    That’s true Mark D and our own JamesK describes him in the most hateful terms. Maybe we all need to look at this and just lift our game.

    V, in relation to your 3.25 question, Why indeed, it continues to be a source of wonder and disappointment.

  • 21
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:51 pm | Permalink


    You were quick to put a bullet in your own foot. You accuse others of “hyperbolic smear and sneer” then call me “rabid right” because I called Julia “Dullard” - and dullard she is for allowing political gain to destroy her credibility and that of the party.

    And “Graham clearly delineates the causality” - that’s the end of your credibility.


    You answered your own question re wealth redistribution. Lower and middle get a bonus, high wage earners pay. Not that I’m agin it - I’m in the former :-)

    Nor can I speak for Abbott - ‘d need to be of the rabid right to so do!

  • 22
    Len Lambeth
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Quizzical: and your point is?

  • 23
    Dr Shorthair
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    No point arguing http://tinyurl.com/44ozzec

  • 24
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Your question again makes my point :-) But, as explanation:

    It is intellectually justifiable to argue that my viewpoint facilitated my action.” :-)

  • 25
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink


    If Andrew Bolt had written an article in like vein, and attempted to make such links in the reverse direction, it would have been thoroughly trashed by the true believers.

    Bolt did does do this. It’s his modus operandum.

    Every post he writes takes a stab at the Left, or the Greens, or Muslims, by taking something they said out completely out of context and comparing it to an atrocity (or at least an atrocity in his mind).


  • 26
    peter cox
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    wow. I just signed up for the free membership and and pretty suprised. I thought crikey was supposed to be even handed , different from the mainstream bias as touted by you and am pretty disappointed. The amount of “left” and “right” in articles and the majority of comments from readers seam pretty one sided.

    I think its pretty offensive that the writers of articles and comments compare the attitudes of a madman and people from the right of politics. It’s no different from an islamic extremist madman doing something similar that happens in the middle east regurlarly and comparing them to all muslims.

    Sometimes its interesting to get yourself all revved up listening to views totally opposite to yourself, but I think I’d rather just not log on.

  • 27
    Lord Barry Bonkton
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    How much longer do we have to wait for The World President Bob Brown to take over the world and start Mulching these trouble makers . The game is up , Chris has cracked their code of silence (Phone Hacked ) and is spreading the word, he must be stopped. Get in early , the price of Caves will triple .

  • 28
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Environmentalists are Marxist! You have to worry about the right wing. They are the definition of selfish, placing accumulation of personal wealth above all else. The poor, the environment which supports everything - not me don’t care. Happy to leave the legacy of their destructive actions to their children and grandchildren to resolve.

    Baillieu didnt even have an environmental policy to take to the last election. First action once elected, let cows into a national park. Pitiful..

  • 29
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    If one should be wary of dubious allies, to channel the Iron Duke, the mere fact the Breivik thinks the Brown Nosed Rodent is worthy of praise sez all that is needed about the rabid Right & its irrationalism.

  • 30
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    It’s time we punctured the “just a lone madman” excuse. It was rolled out for Joseph Stack, again for Jared Joughner and it’s being rolled out now to quarantine the extremism of modern right-wing politics from the actions of a right-wing extremist.

    People with a mental illness don’t live in a vacuum. Their perception of the world is disturbed and often fantastical, but they are well and truly aware of their environment and surroundings - sometimes more than the rest of us.

    Most people would be greatly alarmed if they realised just how many people they run into each day who believe that the CIA is following them with satellites, or that they have psychic powers, or that the 7pm news contains a coded message intended specifically for them. People with delusional mental disorders are everywhere, and yet they commit outrageous acts very rarely.

    That’s because someone with a mental illness is aware of the world they live in. They have a sense of right and wrong, or at least an understanding of crime and punishment. Above all, they’re aware that their experience is not common, and that society will not be accepting or sympathetic to them if they harm others. Often, the fact that others are so unaccepting of an individual’s delusions is enough to make the sufferer question their validity and choose not to act upon them.

    But Joseph Stack, Jared Loughner and Anders Breivik didn’t have that. In fact. they had the opposite: an entire conservative political movement which encouraged and endorsed their most florid paranoia and persecutory fantasies.

    On the internet, radio and television, Stack, Loughner and Breivik received confirmation that a unified Marxist conspiracy lies behind the facade of environmentalism and progressive politics. In newspapers, magazines and public lectures, significant conservative figures told them with absolute certainty that every single leftist is not only a willing agent of Islamic fascism who will stop at nothing to destroy Christianity and western traditions, but that these things are ends in themselves for the fanatical left-wing jihad.

    So Redfearn is absolutely correct to implicate Mr Monckton in Breivik’s slaughter of unarmed civilians. Along with other prominent conspiracy theorists, Monckton encouraged and abetted Breivik’s extremists beliefs; gave them confirmation, structure and a historical touchstone linking the facts of climate science to the atrocities of European fascism.

    None of this “just a lone nut” rubbish, please. Joseph Stack, Jared Loughner, and Anders Breivik are monsters created by the entire western right and its self-indulgent wallowing in vain conspiracy theories.

  • 31
    Rubaduba doobag
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    The amazing thing is that these ideologues - even seemingly intelligent ones like Breivik - are never troubled by the fact that their beliefs are completely inconsistent with logic and reality. Never mind the fact that Muslims will only comprise 8% of Europe in 2030 - they are clearly mounting a hostile takeover. Never mind the scientific consensus or the fact that most Western countries actually want to cement their economic lead by subjecting developing countries to the same emissions levels as themselves - they are falling over themselves to pay those same countries billions in ‘climate debt’. Never mind the fact that foreign aid is falling across the US and Europe, where citizens live large while Somalis starve - they are clearly falling over themselves to redistribute their wealth.

    Its the same as those white males that think that they are now the most oppressed demographic because they can’t call people n*ggers anymore and - to quote American Dad - they now only have most of the power instead of all of it. Breivik is just another run-of-the-mill racisct who uses ideology to justify his lack of compassion and other psychological pathologies. I think that to debate the Muslim and/or immigration issues on his instigation, as much of the media is now doing, is to pay him far too much respect. It would be better simply to extend our heartfelt sympathy to Norway and to dismiss the perpetrator as the monstrous yet banal freak that he is.

  • 32
    Sense Seeker
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Excellent post, Sancho, thanks. It is indeed amazing that right-wing extremists can spew all these toxic ideas without a shred of evidence, and that there is so much acceptance of their nonsense as legitimate points of view. We shouldn’t be surprised that a few disturbed but sentitive souls take their calls to violence to heart.

  • 33
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    @Sancho: “People with a mental illness don’t live in a vacuum”

    I’m not willing to hand Breivik the defence of mental illness, and I very much doubt he’d plead or accept it. From what I can gather, he was completely in control of his senses when he planned and executed this carnage, knowing full well the consequences. That ain’t mad; it’s pure bad.

    And bad people do things which they believe, by their own moral compass, to be right. The Mafia call themselves the goodfellas for a reason. Murdering bands of religious crusaders truly believe they are on a mission from god.

    Breivik sees himself as a goodfella knight. He knows he is going down for his beliefs, as he should.

  • 34
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    ^ bah, last line should read:

    Breivik sees himself as a goodfella knight. He knows he is going down for his actions, as he should.

  • 35
    Lord Barry Bonkton
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Time to bring back Rule .303 in Denmark for 1 trial. Then bury in a unmarked grave . Compost .

  • 36
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Throughout history it has always been a cop out to brand the Anders Breiviks of this world as madmen. So I’m quite sure the man is perfectly sane……until I saw the photo of him dressed in the uniform of a king/admiral/someone having the right to cover themselves in scrambled- egg braid. I know the man is sane, but a psychiatrist might see something odd there.

  • 37
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    It’s possible Breivik isn’t mentally ill - the banality of evil and all that - but I think it’s important to spell out that the Norway tragedy isn’t a one-off, but part of an established pattern of domestic right-wing terrorism that’s clearly a product of the deranged beliefs that now constitute mainstream western conservatism.

  • 38
    Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Barry, the chief (perhaps sole) reason against capital punishment is that it diminishes your own humanity and that of your society. Revenge is destructive.

  • 39
    Captain Planet
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world.

    The irony of this claim is that, when taken out of context, this actually sounds like an admirable “true agenda”.

  • 40
    Captain Planet
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 1:43 am | Permalink

    The comparison to Breivik’s manifesto is chilling.

    Don’t be ridiculous. I agree with almost nothing Lord Planckton says, but to attempt to lump him in with the utter crazy nutbag in Norway through some kind of “guilt by association” is really quite low.

    The comparison is not “Chilling”. This is an attempt to slyly hint or imply that Lord Monckton in some way advocates or supports mass murder.

    The comparison is reasonable, as Breivik obviously followed Monckton’s opinons -but this in no way taints Lord Monckton. He is not responsible for the actions of those who believe his theories.

  • 41
    Captain Planet
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.

    Shame on you. What a low blow.

    What a revolting attempt to smear your ideological opponents.

  • 42
    Blair Martin
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    Lord Barry: think you’ve scrambled your Scandinavians… Denmark is the spit of land and some islands that hangs off the northern end of Germany. Norway is the large-ish finger of land to the north-west of that… (As for capital punishment? Similar viewpoint: scrambled.)
    Oh, Captain Planet: what do you call a man that uses the imagery of a movement that advocated and practiced mass murder to smear his ideological opponents? (Though, I share your sentiments with your first of three comments.)

  • 43
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    @ PETER COX - If you have been reading the main stream media (MSM) you will be shocked at your first foray into Crikey. This is because 99% of the time Crikey gives us the FACTS and no lies. A bit confronting, I know!
    As for the comments - we all get to present our point of view (most of the time) without being censored. Unless you use foul language or use peoples’names in a derogatory fashion or stray off subject, the moderator will pass your contribution. It is really quite liberating when you get used to the difference.
    I suggest you stick with it for awhile - you might even get to like being told what is really going on in this country and the rest of the world!!!

  • 44
    Harvey Tarvydas
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Graham Readfearn, a man with 2 extra A’s in his surname, earns the 2 A’s from me for an interesting and courageous exploration of ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ packaging for international transporting compliance.

    Here more than in most jurisdictions ‘Psychology, psychology, psychology is everything.

    I am impressed Crikey, huge tick.

  • 45
    Harvey Tarvydas
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @PETER COX — Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 6:24 pm
    I see a bit of an agenda oozing out of your posts.

    @DAVID — Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:34 pm
    Spot on.

    @SANCHO — Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 8:06 pm
    An ‘A’ for effort.

    Harvey’s Psy3 on ‘conspiracy theory’
    Conspiracy is as common as cheap shit with one of the most interesting being the one from the ‘call it a conspiracy theory’ club that specializes in that conspiracy since they learned how delicious is the psychological aversion displayed by the population at large to that cheap dishonest phrase ‘another conspiracy theorist’ and the endless reward it proffers to conspirators.

  • 46
    Harvey Tarvydas
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @MARK DUFFETT — Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 3:03 pm
    Hey, we all breathe Oxygen and do a few other things exactly the same; it proves we are all Human and all responsible to some degree.
    the Definition of Human Behaviour = what Humans do.
    the Definition of acceptable Human Behaviour = Humans doing what’s acceptable.

  • 47
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Was giving you some ticks until your 10:45 pm post.

    part of an established pattern of domestic right-wing terrorism that’s clearly a product of the deranged beliefs that now constitute mainstream western conservatism”

    Go sit with Len.

    Peter Cox
    Not logging on has its values. So does sifting the opinions, no matter how seemingly wild, of others. Someday I may even get an answer to CC/AGW from these forums.

    I deduce by extrapolation from Graham’s blog and some subsequent comments that Jeff Kennett could be a risk to society.
    Jeff collects golliwogs,
    Jeff read Enid Blyton’s “Three Golliwogs” as a child in his formative years,
    Jeff is liberal and fairly right wing,
    Jeff has made some quotes that can be deep and meaningfully examined to draw any conclusion one desires so is highly suspect - e.g. “It would be inappropriate for us to go down that path.”

    Ergo Jeff must be racially prejudiced and likely to snap and kill at any moment. I hereby withdraw his visa to travel north of the tropic of capricorn.

  • 48
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    There’s a well known adage named after internet lawyer Mike Godwin that the first person to mention the Na-zis has lost the argument.

    I’m going to propose a new expression, named after Anders Breivik and his vapid rantings in which he probably mentions a lot of people.

    To Breivik someone: to slur someone with the connotation that a mass murderer approves of the person or of what he says.

    Usage example: Graham Readfearn is so desperate to discredit Lord Monckton that he resorts to Breiviking him.

  • 49
    Richard Wilson
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Michael Rogers says:

    Is global warming significantly contributed to by human activity with adverse effects on human existence a right-wing plot disguised as a left-wing plot to discredit the left and financed by those who finance the fossil fuel industries? Or is it just a left-wing plot to rest control of the world from the multi-national financial institutions? (Code for “world government”.)

    Whichever it is I would put my money on the side with the most money to spend and the most money to lose to win the “debate”.

    Meanwhile governments will appear to being doing “something” and scientists may for a time had better check the political consequences of announcing their observations in this climate.

    Apparently if you have a point of view other than Rundles offical story worldview you are a terrorist which is exactly the next move by those with the most money in the climate debate.

    All red herrings folks. Here are a few bits that I have been able to piece together from the non English speaking press and location sympathetic blogs…:

    Here are a few things perhaps you could have raised rather than just read the Guardian Guy Rundle …

    1)Oslo police were doing bomb terror exercises in Oslo immediately before the “event” much in the same vein as the same day police - bomb - terror exercises on 911 and 7/7 for buildings and subways of a few years back.

    2)The bombing of the government buildings included the PM’s offices while he was visiting the weekend retreat Island where his Young Socialist movement was voting for a Independent Palestinian state and just after the Norwegian Government had declared a pro Palestinian position and was digging in against the IMF and the EU.

    3)Fertiliser bombs don’t blow holes in buildings like this…whether in Oklahoma City or Oslo, Norway.

    4)The guy is a Christian fundamentalist, whiter than white, a Freemason with supposed right wing connections. Some say he was an insider. Mmmm! The lone nutter eh - a la Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, John Wilkes Booth, John Hinkley - oh I could go on for hours here.

    5)He appears to be the most efficient pistolero in history – give the guy a couple of hand guns and he kills 90 people without anyone fighting back. (Oops sorry that has now been dropped to 76…but that is also incredible so wait for it to come down to say 40). Even Columbine shooters were not that efficient and they had help.

    6)Police and MSM appear to have ignored eyewitness accounts of second and possibly third shooters (see Columbine etc) by survivors of shooting taking place simultaneously as well as at other points on the island.

    7)The NATO trained Swat team played role of Keystone Cops and didn’t arrive for over an hour (some reports have it at 90 minutes), because their helicopter was broken and they lost their boat. Lol. (They could have swum to island in full gear in 15 minutes.) We’re are talking about the crackiest troops in Norway. Not gonna happen people!

    8)When apprehended, Breivik was carrying a knife. He has denied he is a terrorist but supposedly admitted the shooting. Uh?

    9)MSM swung straight into action with a full story and profile.

    10)There are reports that Breivik’s Facebook and Twitter accounts went up on July 17th. Uhh?

    Is this dude a fall guy for something much more sinister or is it just that am I from Missouri?

  • 50
    Posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    I await the truther conspiracy on this one.