WorldNetDaily: Oslo Attacks Were a Left-Wing Conspiracy

Watch out for the black helicopters.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helicopters_UH-60_Black_Hawk_Iraq_20060316.jpg">DoD photo by Sgt. 1st Class Antony Joseph, U.S. Army</a>/Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


I had thought Glenn Beck’s comparison of the massacred Norwegian children to the “Hitler Youth” was the most horrific response to last Friday’s terrorist attack in Oslo. But now, via Right Wing Watch, I see that WorldNetDaily and radio host Michael Savage have upped the ante. They’ve decided that it’s just too far-fetched to think that Anders Breivik, the blue-eyed, blond-haired white guy who admitted to the crimes, could have possibly committed such a barbaric act. So they’ve decided it’s probably a cover-up by the left-wing Norwegian government:

“The official story makes no sense,” Savage told WND. “This looks like a classic conspiracy.”

“This has all the appearances of a cover-up,” Savage told WND. “They created their Reichstag fire. They found their Timothy McVeigh. They created their Jack Ruby. How could one man have blown up the downtown and then raced to the island to kill the teens?

“This is likely a fabrication of the Labour Party, who needs to hold onto power to enforce their multi-culturalist, Muslim-favoring, anti-nationalist views,” he continued, “especially in light of the earlier ‘credit’ for this atrocity claimed by the radical Muslim group whose leader they were threatening to deport.

“The official story defies logic in the following sense as well,” he continued, “if this lone right-winger hated Muslims, as the New York Times is reporting, then why did he slaughter his own people and not Muslims?”

So there you have it. I suppose it’s about as plausible as Rush Limbaugh’s assertion last summer that the BP oil spill was part of a plot by environmentalists to make the oil companies look bad.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate