By Stelios

In September 2008, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a heartfelt article in the LA Times asserting that as a direct result of anthropogenic Global Warming ™ (“AGW™”), snowy winters in the DC area were a thing of the past.  “Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled,” Kennedy wrote.  In light of the transparent, blindingly obvious fact that Global Warming™ had caused perpetual “anemic winters” in the DC area, Kennedy fumed that oil companies were still funding “think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing global warming is a fantasy.”

Nature has a sense of humor, however, and the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11 were among the most brutally cold and snowy in recorded history.  AGW skeptics like me were shocked – shocked I tell you! – to discover that not only were die-hard alarmists like RFK not moved by the inconvenient truth that Mother Nature doesn’t give a shit what RFK thinks, but that the acolytes of Gore actually were willing to double down.  Thus, mainstream publications like the NYTimes and Time magazine actually published articles claiming that the blizzards experienced by the eastern US during the past two winters were the result of… wait for it….  Anthropogenic Global Warming™!  Example: “There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.” (Bryan Walsh, “Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming?”, Time Magazine, Feb 2010; see also “[T]he overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.”).  Got that?  “Anemic winters” are caused by AGW™, and very cold, snowy, extreme winters are caused by…. AGW™.

If these contortions by the enviro-left leave you with the impression that these people will say anything to advance their cosmology, that’s probably because these people will say anything to advance their cosmology.  The truth is subordinate to the simple question of whether the assertion, the article, the position taken will advance The Cause.  In this case, The Cause is environmentalism, an elastic term with adherents whose goals vary from the sincere and straightforward (clean air, less pollution, protecting green spaces, etc.) to the terrifying (PETA, eco-terrorists, extreme anti-capitalists, etc.).  I bring all this up not to address the debate about AGW™ and its impact, but to point out how the Left is willing to take completely incoherent or contradictory positions when it suits them; that is, when it advances The Cause.  Whatever your feelings about AGW, you have zero credibility if you believe that both RFK and Bryan Walsh are sincere and correct.  At least one of them has to be wrong.  Or, quite plausibly, they could both simply be full of shit and willing to say anything they believe will help the Cause.

That brings me to the Norway terror attack.  It’s still not clear what the killer’s motives were – Breivik’s writings are not coherent, and while he clearly had issues with multi-culturalism and the Islamification of Norway and Europe in general, literally NONE of the conservative bloggers and writers (Mark Steyn, Melanie Philips, Daniel Pipes, etc.) mentioned in his ramblings advocate the use of any violent means to counteract or combat the spread of Islamism in the West.  Further, Breivik cites Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, Churchill, Twain and many other writers and thinkers, and apparently he plagiarized a great deal directly from Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.  He was also an avid New York Times reader, apparently.  So the first critical fact here is that Breivik seems to be very disturbed, and while he clearly had anti-jihadist leanings, he was not part of a meaningful anti-jihadist movement or organization, and the conservative writers he cites do not and have never advocated any form of violence.

Next, what actually happened was that several dozen mostly ethnic Norwegians were killed by an ethnic Norwegian – a white Scandinavian killed a lot of white Scandinavians.  Nonetheless, the mainstream media has decided that this horrific act of violence was specifically an act of “Islamophobia”.   USA Today stated that “Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.” (  The AP added that this is an attack that “exposed the failure to root out Islamophobia that has bled into the European mainstream.”  (The title of this article was “Security beefed up at UK mosques after Norway massacre”.  Also of interest are the frequent attempts to label Breivik a “Christian” killer, even though his writings specify a desire for a “secular European society”, and he frequently condemns religious Christians for various things including being soft-hearted.  By contrast, the NYTimes never mentioned the fact that Major Nidal Hasan – the Fort Hood killer – was a Muslim in any of six major articles written about the attack in the days and weeks after it.  In case you were unaware, Hasan was a devotee of hardcore jihadist clerics and yelled “allahu akbar!” throughout the massacre, but the Times thought it would be improper to suggest Islam has anything to do with his motives.  No such hesitation in the case of Breivik’s hazy “Christianity”…)

Just so we are clear, these publications have asserted that the murder of dozens of blonde, blue-eyed Norwegians is irrefutable proof of rampant, dangerous “Islamophobia” in Europe.  Let’s agree that Breivik may well have been an Islamophobe, and put aside whether he had good reason to be one.  The point here is that the MSM eagerly identifies an Islamophobic wave of violence from the acts of one seriously disturbed, lone wolf killer, and yet after literally hundreds of acts of jihad in dozens of countries, most committed by men who are actually attached to jihadist organizations and were animated by a specific Islamist call to violent jihad, we are continuously told that there is nothing to fear from radical Islam, and that we should never “rush to judgment” when a Muslim murders innocents in the West.  Thus, when jihadist Faisal Shahzad was identified in the Times Square bombing attempt, a CNN anchor noted that his house was in foreclosure, and added, “One would have to imagine that that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family.”  Mayor Bloomberg told Katie Couric that perhaps the would-be terrorist was “a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the healthcare bill or something.”  Riiiiiight.

I don’t have enough information to prove that Breivik was “just a lunatic” or even that Shahzad or Hasan was clearly a jihadist; the facts that are available, however, speak for themselves.  What has been proven, however, is that for the MSM and their ideological supporters, covering events means taking whatever evidence has been presented and, to the greatest extent possible, trying to make it fit the narrative they support and have invested in.  Given the left’s view that Islam is a “religion of peace”, that there is no clash of civilizations between the West and radical Islam, that jihadists distort “true Islam” and are tiny in number (or are themselves deranged), no act of terrorism will be equated with the jihad or connected to anything ideological (except perhaps opposition to healthcare reform).  Jihadist terrorists will be presumed to have other motives (derangement, foreclosure, Obama-care) and will be presumed to have acted alone.  (Jihadist attacks and attempted attacks are so frequent, I could not even finish this post without a new one being uncovered:  By contrast, any white males who commit atrocities will be presumed part of a right wing and/or Islamophobic “movement” or “wave”, even if the perpetrator appears clearly deranged and the evidence is dubious/ambiguous (Breivik) or non-existent (Jared Loughner, whose senseless violence was attributed to Sarah Palin by the MSM, until it became apparent that there was exactly zero evidence of a Palin connection).

As bad and as dangerous as this phenomenon is, at least we have the internet and other alternative news sources to provide truth and counter-weight.  That’s the only good news that emerges from the sea of lies and delusions in which the MSM swims these days.  Journalism — true journalism — to the extent it still exists, exists despite the MSM, not within it.