Of course they will. No doubt they started salivating the moment the first headline appeared noting the Norway killer is a “right wing extremist.”
Mike McNally, writing at the PJ Tatler, ponders the question Can the Left Resist the Temptation to Exploit the Norway Attacks?
However, in one sense yesterday’s attacks are the exception that proves the ‘BBC rule’. If the gunman (who is also thought to be responsible for the bombing) had been of Middle Eastern appearance, and had shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he mowed down his victims, today many in the media would still be speculating about a possible motive, and the authorities would be urging us not to jump to conclusions, as was the case with Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. But Norwegian police and media were reporting the ‘right-wing’ connection within hours of the attacks, and by first thing this morning officials were describing the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, as ‘a right-wing fundamentalist Christian’.
The rush to get Breivik’s profile out their suggests an eagerness to exonerate Muslims by the authorities, and the regularity with which the ‘right-wing’ connection is being repeated by the media suggests both relief and relish: not only do we not have to report bad things about Muslims, we get open season on right-wingers.
Right-wing fundamentalist Christian. It’s a slam-dunk for the liberal-left; the ultimate caricature of conservative extremism; the bogeyman that had until know existed largely in their imaginations made real.
As I argued in this piece for Pajamas, two years ago almost to the day, the very term ‘far-right’ is an invention of the liberal-left, employed to discredit the opinions of anyone holding conservative views – just now I actually heard a BBC newsreader describe Breivik as ‘right-wing’ and ‘conservative’ in the same breath.
Think about it: when was the last time you heard or saw a reference in the mainstream media to the ‘far-left’?
Be sure to read the whole thing.
Oh, and no, it was not unreasonable to believe or speculate that the attacks in Norway were the work of Islamist fundamentalists. They applauded it, for crying out loud!
Update: Someone noted that the killer is a neo-Nazi. The history books tell us Nazi’s were far right, but that’s just because they were so close in ideology to the left they had to distinguish themselves, for what it’s worth.
Update: The Washington Times has more on the killer, Anders Behring Breivik. He was extremely anti-Muslim. Which makes me wonder, why didn’t he target Muslims?
Update 2: Donald Douglas concludes that Breivik had no clear ideology, and directs us to two pieces that are worth reading. Dana Loesch’s quick primer on the meaning of “right wing” (hint: it’s not American conservatism as we know it) and a piece by criminology professor James Alan Fox. Fox believes Breivik fits the mold of a classic sociopath.
Also, Lady Liberty has more.