Has The New York Times shouldered any of the blame for injecting into the public square the possibility that Muslims were to blame for the recent terror bombing in Oslo? Of course, not! The newspaper has, however, attempted to foist some of the blame for the bombing upon conservative, “counter-jihad” writers — including yours truly — in the United States and Europe.
In case you missed it, the “Old Gray Lady” of newspapering — note, I didn’t use the word “journalism” — ran a piece Saturday which, on page two, including the following paragraph about who might be responsible for the deadly attacks at the Norwegian government building and on the island of Utoeya that, combined, left more than 100 dead:
Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.
The article ended with the following “insightful” commentary from John D. Cohen, principal deputy counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security:
“What happened in Norway,” Mr. Cohen said, “is a dramatic reminder that in trying to prevent attacks, we cannot focus on a single ideology.”
While I didn’t quote Cohen in my Saturday afternoon piece about the attacks, I did mention the alleged claim of responsibility by the Muslim group and was careful to cite the Times as having published that alleged claim.
Still, it didn’t take long for loyal readers of the Times — in particular, one chap from the United Kingdom who anonymously posted a dozen or so comments (most of which I deleted) — to come after me. “For what?” you ask. Allegedly blaming Muslims for the dirty deeds in Norway and, ergo, wanting to kill them in revenge. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Such attempts to paint conservatives — especially conservative writers like me and Pamela Gellar — as extremists willing to exact death and destruction upon others as some twisted means of restoring freedom, justice and the American Way to daily living, makes me think we’ve entered Round Two of a thought-policing action that exposed more than two years ago in my post, Yikes, I Might Be Part of the Militia Movement!
In that report, I noted how I fit the criteria for being identified as a member of the militia movement, according to a report issued Feb. 20, 2009, by the Missouri Information Analysis Center — then a little-known branch of the Missouri State Police — and signed by the Show-Me State’s new liberal governor, Democrat Jay Nixon. Below are some of the examples I cited:
- ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF THE UNITED STATES: They explain, “Many militia organizations feel that the U.S. government will fall due to economic or racial issues.” They follow up on that thought by citing the influence of a recent political forecast by Igor Panarin, a Russian professor, upon militia members. Panarin predicted in December that the U.S. would collapse and split into six different regions controlled by foreign governments. Lock me up! On Dec. 29, I wrote and published a post about Panarin’s prediction and even reprinted the very map contained in the MIAC document — and I did it on the same day as the subversives at the Wall Street Journal published an on the same subject.
- RFID TECHNOLOGY: They explain that militia members fear the government will enforce mass RFID human implantations that would make it possible for the government to continually know the locations of all citizens. Lock me up! I’ve written at least three posts about RFID technology since Aug. 30, 2008.
- CHRISTIAN IDENTITY: Next to a page 4 subhead, “Christian Identity,” they explain that religious ideology is popular in extreme right-wing circles. Lock me up! I’m a Christian!
“It seems like they want to stifle political thought” is how Roger Webb, then-president of the University of Missouri Libertarians, described the motivation behind the report, according to an Associated Press article published March 14, 2009 (link no longer available). Based on what the folks at the Times are saying in the wake of the Oslo tragedies, I can only conclude that they would like to do the same.