Can we believe anything Breivik says?

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 25, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik

Is Anders Behring Breivik, the alleged terrorist who blew up a government building in Oslo, Norway a reliable source for the public to learn why and how he carried out the attack? His acquaintance and co-worker, Ulav Andersson, says he may have been brainwashed.

Kim Heger, the Norwegian judge seeing the case, has determined that Breivik must remain hidden in a cell under solitary confinement, away from everyone and everything. Official statements from Norwegian justice say that the supposed bomber has confessed to working with two other cells, and the judge has given him 8 weeks of detention while more details surface.

According to Reuters, the suspect confessed to using bombs and participating in the shootings, but did not admit guilt. However, the court has denied requests to elaborate on Breivik’s claims that he worked with two other cells or organizations and any extra details of the plot, where the cells are located, possible members, where he got to be part of the cells and so on.

There are some questions one can raise about Anders Behring Breivik and his recent past that could help clarify the reasons for him allegedly participating in the attacks. For example, sas he seeing a Psychiatrist recently? Was he taking any medication, such as psychotropics? Who was he in contact with, friends, associates etc… in the days, weeks and months before the attacks? Did he travel to foreign countries in the recent past? Was he enlisted to participate or did he participated in Norway’s mandatory military service? What was he trained in: military intelligence?

As we reported last night, Oslo’s and Utoya’s attacks have very serious tones of a false-flag attack, however it will not be until the above posed questions are answered that we will be able to definitely say whether it is or not. The fact that Breivik acted alone or otherwise as part of a cell, does not tell much about whether he is a patsy or not. What is strange as the news continue to develop, is that Norwegian authorities are being sketchy about the information they put out. If they believe people should know Breivik confessed to participating in the attacks, shouldn’t the public also be awarded elaborated reports about what he has told police?

The practice of skimming information and feeding only little bits of it could be seen as a tactic by police not to interrupt or cause harm to their investigation, but if they already have the alleged bomber confessing to the crime, what else is there to know? Would not Breivik provide all the information police needs to continue their work? On the other hand, and given recent history, it is more likely that authorities prefer not to reveal details because they may have to come out and correct parts that do not make sense in order to keep people unaware of the real facts. It is much easier to control information when there is only one person making public statements about this terrorist attack than when there are 2 or 3.

In any case, what credibility does any statement from Breivik has as he has already changed his story twice in three days? If he was brainwashed as Andersson suggested, there is even less credibility on anything he says.  “The accused has made statements today that require further investigation, including that ‘there are two more cells in our organization,” judge Heger said during a news conference.

UPDATE (25 JULY 1, 35 PM):

Norwegian authorities now say the death toll is lower than what was published prematurely. A total of 76 individuals and NOT 92.

Oslo Terror Attack has False-flag Tones

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 24, 2011

As the Real Agenda warned on Thursday, the likelihood of a false-flag terror attack was ever more possible than in the last few years. In our article published on Thursday July 21, we focused attention on a new video put out by the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA in the United States which specifically pointed to white or caucasian males as potential threats for terrorism. In the video, both organizations portrayed white men dropping off car bombs in a federal building and activating explosives on a street somewhere.

What are the chances that the very next day, a supposed white terrorist attacked a government building in Oslo, Norway? What are the chances that the alleged bomber used one of the two methods showed in the Homeland Security video? What are the chances that it was a white male with Christian Conservative beliefs?

One only needs to take a look at the history and the main traits that past terrorist attacks had and compare them to the bomb attack in Oslo, but that could have occurred anywhere else in the world. First of all, the main stream media rapidly came out blaming muslim extremists for the attack to later change their story and blame “white” Al-Qaeda for the attacks in Oslo and Utoya.

Another part that coincides with other false-flag attacks is that the supposed perpetrator is presented as acting alone, and when the fake public relations media stories fail to convince the public, new details are added to make the story live for another day. Now, police say they have a second man in custody who supposedly acted together with Anders Behring Breivik to carry out both attacks. The same lone patsy scheme was offered by authorities during the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center attack in 1993.

Another piece of information that does not make sense is that the terrorist attack happened on a holiday, when most government workers were not at their desks. Why would a terrorist take the time and work to carry out an attack and make it happen during a holiday? Why would a terrorist group attack a mostly empty building on a holiday? Oslo’s bomb blast comes in times of economic hardship in Europe while the government is experiencing low levels of approval from the public and after Norway announced the withdrawal of its troops from the NATO force that is bombing Libya and other countries in Africa.

Anders Behring Breivik is a white caucasian of 32 years of age, who calls himself a Christian Conservative and as some reports rumor, a Freemason. Nothing against freemasons here. No way though, a “lone wolf” killed 92 people in Norway. In fact, another man has been apprehended. Is the information posted on Breivik’s Facebook page an attempt to frame Christian Conservatives to later label them as potential terrorists? That is a very likely scenario, because that is what governments did with muslims after 9/11. See Anders Behring Breivik´s Facebook page here.

To all this we have to add that police delayed any action in the island of Utoya for 90 minutes. That allowed the shooter there to carry out its plan to shoot everyone who he found while the police arrived. During 9/11, fighting jets were also delayed by at least one hour which allowed the planes to make their way to New York City. The dying dinosaur main stream media blamed Muslims for Norway’s attack with zero evidence and also blamed “white” Al-Qaeda, again, with no proof of it.

Given the fact that Norway’s Prime Minister was supposed to meet and talk to the youngsters in Utoya, it makes it too convenient that the bomb in the government building was a well placed distraction to help the shooters in Utoya carry out the killings. Another convenient fact is that Anders Behring Breivik was supposedly a farmer. He was seen buying six tons of fertilizer before the massacre, his supplier said Saturday. The shooting started just hours after the explosion that destroyed the government building in Oslo where the prime minister’s office was located.

According to historian and researcher Webster G. Tarpley, the terror attack in Oslo has “telltale signs of a false flag provocation”.

It is reported that, although the world media are attempting to focus on Anders Behring Breivik as a lone assassin in the tradition of Lee Harvey Oswald, many eyewitnesses agree that a second shooter was active in the massacre at the Utøya summer youth camp outside of Oslo. It has also come to light that a special police unit had been conducting a drill or exercise in downtown Oslo which involved the detonation of bombs – exactly what caused the bloodshed a few hundred meters away little more than 48 hours later. Further research reveals that United States intelligence agencies had been conducting a large-scale program of recruiting retired Norwegian police officers with the alleged purpose of conducting surveillance inside the country. This program, known as SIMAS Surveillance Detection Units, provided a perfect vehicle for the penetration and subversion of the Norwegian police by NATO. “

According to Norwegian media, several drills were conducted in the days before the attacks in Oslo, with men in black suits climbing down the walls of buildings downtown Oslo, just a few hundred meters from the prime minister’s office. This behaviour matches actions carried out in previous false-flag attacks such as the one on September 11, 2001. What government drills allow for is the collocation of explosives or car bombs -which may be part of the drill- and that in theory are fake explosives and fake car bombs, but that in reality are real explosives and real car bombs. Those who participate in the drills may or may not know about the real explosives or bombs, because the equipment and materials used during such drills are most often than not “real world” ones. The fact that drills occurred also protect those who may be to blame for the attack because “everything was part of the drill” and no one knew there were real explosives or real car bombs involved.

Another trait that makes the bomb blast in Oslo strange is that an acquaintance of Anders Behring Breivik, Ulav Andersson, says he may have been brainwashed. Anderson was also Breivik’s co-worker.

Breivik also attended Knight’s Templar meetings and as we reported before, he seems to also be a Freemason. The only thing that has not happened in Oslo’s terror attack is that Breivik has not been mysteriously murdered in prison or hung himself in his cell as it happened in other cases. But new developments will be unfolding in the following days and this outcome would not be a surprise.

While all this information is out there clearly pointing to false-flag attack, the main stream media and their security and terrorism experts choose to ignore them and go blame the Christian Conservative extremists.

U.S. Government Ordered Media not to question 9/11 Official Story

Washington’s Blog
June 14, 2011

It’s big news that the Pentagon Papers have finally been released by the government.

But the statements from Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg about 9/11 have not been covered by the corporate media.

As Fire Dog Lake’s Jeff Kaye writes today:

The entire 9/11 field of inquiry has been vilified, poisoned over the years by ridicule, sometimes fantastic conspiracy mongering, and fearfulness by journalists of approaching the material, lest they be branded as irresponsible or some kind of conspiracy freak. As a result, little work has been done to investigate, except by a small group of people, some of whom have raised some real questions …

Similarly, Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski – who blew the whistle on the Bush administration’s efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – wrote(page 26):

I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.

Several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather toldthe BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions…. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.What we are talking about here – whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not – is a form of self-censorship.

The head of CNN agreed:

There was ‘almost a patriotism police’ after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration’s policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and “big people in corporations were calling up and saying, ‘You’re being anti-American here.’

Keith Olbermann said:

You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble …. You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our …. system.

Former Washington Post – and now Huffington Post – columnist Dan Froomkin wrotein 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .

There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.

I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter – whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:

“All of the institutions we thought would protect us — particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress — they have failed. The courts . . . the jury’s not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn’t. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that’s the most glaring….Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?

[Long pause] You’d have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You’d actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn’t think you could control. And they’re not going to do that.”

Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

“the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked.”

Of course, the corporate media is always pro-war. Since 9/11 provided a justification for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere, the mainstream media doesn’t want to question the government’s version of events.

As Tom Brokaw notes:

All wars are based on propaganda.

What Does Ellsberg Say?

Ellsberg saysthat the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”].As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who “sat on the NSA spying story for over a year” when they “could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome.”

“There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'” he told us.

* * *

“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?'” contends Ellsberg. “The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .'”

He supports a new 9/11 investigation.

He says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. (Here’s some of what that whistleblower says.) He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.

And he says that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

Alternative Media Is Not Much Better

It is not just the corporate media.

I have had the owners of highly-regarded alternative media companies confide in me privately that they don’t believe the government’s version of 9/11, but that are scared of discussing it publicly because they don’t want to be tarred-and-feathered for discussing “conspiracy theories”.

Even writers like Glenn Greenwald – who are good on so many issues – won’t touch it.

Of course – as Ellsberg points out – “Secrets … can be kept reliably … for decades … even though they are known to thousands of insiders”. Indeed, the whole label “conspiracy theory” is just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.

People used to understand this. As the quintessential American writer Mark Twain said in a more rational age:

A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.

Of course, as thousands of top American military officers, counter-terrorism officials, intelligence officers, congressmen, structural engineers, and others have publicly said, the government’s story about 9/11 makes absolutely no sense. See this, this, this and this. And family members of people who died on 9/11 – and many New Yorkers – want a new investigation.

But you’ll never hear that in the corporate media.

Presidential cancer advisors warn about environmental risks of cancer chemicals

Natural News

When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it’s an event so rare that it becomesCancernewsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are “bombarded” with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.

In a directive to President Obama, the report states, “The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby — all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.

ACS attacks the report

The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a “cancer chemical cover-up” with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A…) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing…)

Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don’t exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.

So it’s no surprise that the ACS doesn’t like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! “The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures,” the report writes.

The great chemical denial

Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!

Don’t worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There’s nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.

That’s their message, you see, and it’s a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don’t prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they’ll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.

The radiation threat from medical imaging

The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, “People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.

I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m…) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers…)

The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals

Here at NaturalNews, I’ve been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the “dirty little secret” of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system… they just pretend it doesn’t exist.

Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: “Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown.”

It’s about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn’t contaminated with pharmaceuticals.

But don’t expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).

What the report really says

The President’s Cancer Panel is headed by:

LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059

Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030

These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.

The report is entitled, “REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK – What We Can Do Now”

Here are some of the highlights from the report:


• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.

• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.

• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.

• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data — and the exposure limits extrapolated from them — fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.

• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.

• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.

• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.

• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.

• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.

• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.

• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.

• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.

• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born “pre-polluted.” There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children’s health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children’s environmental health.

• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.

• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.

• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor’s note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We’ve been doing this for years!]