A Message to All You MSM-Journalists:

Henryk Broder: Hurra, ich habe Wirkung!

Quelle: welt.de

Aber selbst wenn ich Bastelbuchautor wäre, hätte Breivik gemordet. Von Henryk M. Broder

Nach massiven Attacken in überregionalen deutschen Zeitungen antwortet unser Autor noch einmal seinen schärfsten Kritikern.

Im Jahre 1923 stellte Kurt Tucholsky fest: “Ich habe Erfolg, aber keinerlei Wirkung.” Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war er bereits einer der bekanntesten und produktivsten Journalisten der Weimarer Republik, Chefredakteur des “Ulk”, der satirischen Beilage des “Berliner Tageblatts”, Mitarbeiter des Wochenblatts “Die Weltbühne”, für das er Leitartikel, Rezensionen, Glossen und Gerichtsreportagen unter seinem Namen und vier Pseudonymen schrieb: Ignaz Wrobel, Theobald Tiger, Peter Panter und Kaspar Hauser.

Seine Bücher waren Bestseller, die Frauen verehrten ihn. Bevor “Tucho” als Korrespondent für die “Vossische Zeitung” nach Paris ging, belieferte er das Kabarett und Künstlerinnen wie Trude Hesterberg mit bissigen Texten, und weil ihm das alles nicht genug war, engagierte er sich auch in der SPD, der USPD und im “Friedensbund der Kriegsteilnehmer”. Tucholsky war und ist der Prototyp des politischen Schriftstellers, der etwas erreichen will, dem es nicht nur auf den Erfolg, sondern vor allem auf die Wirkung seiner Arbeit ankommt. Er wollte Deutschland vor sich selber retten, und als er merkte, dass ihm das nicht gelingen würde, gab er enttäuscht auf. “Mein Leben ist mir zu kostbar, mich unter einen Apfelbaum zu stellen und ihn zu bitten, Birnen zu produzieren. Ich nicht mehr. Ich habe mit diesem Land, dessen Sprache ich so wenig wie möglich spreche, nichts mehr zu schaffen”, schrieb er im Dezember 1935 aus seinem Exil in Schweden an Arnold Zweig. Sechs Tage später nahm er sich das Leben. Das letzte Zeugnis seiner tiefen Resignation ist eine Zeichnung, auf der eine dreistufige Treppe zu sehen ist: “Sprechen, Schreiben, Schweigen.”

Keine andere Berufsgruppe, nicht einmal die der Politiker, ist dermaßen von der Überzeugung beseelt, sich engagieren zu müssen, wie die der Schriftsteller. Ein engagierter Schriftsteller schreibt nicht nur, er unterschreibt auch: Resolutionen für den Frieden, gegen die Armut und für soziale Gerechtigkeit, für das Gute an sich und gegen das Böse im Allgemeinen. Man könnte Bibliotheken mit den Aufrufen von Schriftstellern füllen, die in den letzten sechs Jahrzehnten in die Welt gesetzt wurden. Die einen agierten als Ich-AG, die anderen als Kollektiv ohne eigene Haftung. Unvergessen sind die Auftritte von Günter Grass, der Mitte der 60er-Jahre durch die Bonner Republik tourte und dazu aufrief, die “Es-Pe-De zu wählen”, obwohl er selbst erst 1982 der Partei beitrat und sie 1992 wieder verließ – aus Protest gegen deren Asylpolitik.

Auch die deutsche Wiedervereinigung fand gegen den Rat von Grass statt, der die DDR eine “kommode Diktatur” und die deutsche Teilung eine “Strafe für Auschwitz” genannt hatte. Grollend und schmollend zog er sich daraufhin für eine Weile aus dem Rampenlicht zurück. Zuletzt trat die Gilde der Unterschriftsteller vor zwei Monaten mit einem Aufruf für “Solidarität mit dem libyschen Volk” in Erscheinung, in dem nicht der libysche Herrscher Gaddafi, sondern die Nato verurteilt wurde, weil sie “alle einschlägigen Bestimmungen des Völkerrechts” missachtet und das libysche Volk dafür bestraft, dass es “seinen eigenen Entwicklungsweg geht” und “und sich jeglicher Rekolonialisierung verweigert”.

Erstaunlicher noch als die politische Weisheit solcher Aufrufe ist die Naivität ihrer Verfasser, die vom Glauben an die eigene Wichtigkeit dermaßen berauscht sind, dass sie vor keiner Peinlichkeit zurückschrecken. Würde die Innung der Schornsteinfeger oder der Friseure eine Erklärung zu einer NATO-Intervention abgeben, wäre das zwar ebenso komisch aber artfremd. Obwohl es viel mehr Schornsteinfeger als Schriftsteller gibt, sind diese quasi von Natur aus zum “Engagement” verpflichtet. Ein Schriftsteller, der sich nicht engagiert, ist wie ein Musiker, der Luftgitarre spielt.

Auch das Publikum sieht es so. Es will wissen, warum ein Schriftsteller schreibt und was er mit dem Geschriebenen erreichen will. Eine ehrliche Antwort kann ihn die Sympathien seiner Leser kosten: “Weil ich reich und berühmt werden will” oder “Weil ich nichts Ordentliches gelernt habe”. Das kann man denken, sagen sollte man es nicht, wenn man zu einem Panel über “Die Rolle des Schriftstellers in Zeiten der Globalisierung” im Berliner Haus der Kulturen der Welt eingeladen werden möchte.

Bis vor Kurzem war ich von der Qualität meiner Texte überzeugt, aber mitnichten von meiner Fähigkeit, Geschichte zu schreiben, Sand in das Getriebe des Geschehens zu streuen. Das hat sich geändert, seit ich lesen musste, dass ich (in Zusammenarbeit mit Thilo Sarrazin und Geert Wilders) für den Massenmord auf der Insel Utöya bei Oslo mitverantwortlich bin.

Zwar wäre es “demagogisch, Broder und andere deutsche Islamophobe zu geistigen Brandstiftern zu erklären und für Breiviks Verbrechen in Mithaftung zu nehmen”, schreibt ein Kollege in der Frankfurter Rundschau, richtig sei aber auch, “dass Schriften, wie sie Broder verbreitet, das Entrebillett für den aggressiven Antiislamismus bilden, der nicht nur die deutsche, sondern fast alle europäischen Gesellschaften befallen hat”. Ein Wiener Autor geht in der taz einen Schritt weiter: “Broder & Co haben sich der Mittäterschaft schuldig gemacht… Man sollte sie nicht einfach so damit durchkommen lassen…” Egal, welche Form der Strafe dem Kollegen vorschwebt, er hat sich viel vorgenommen.

“Broder hat mit Sicherheit nicht den Amoklauf Breiviks veranlasst”, urteilt ein Blogger, um den Freispruch gleich wieder aufzuheben: “Gesinnungsbrüder sind sie trotzdem… Weshalb Broder zum Federhalter greift – während sich Breivik stattdessen Glock und Ruger bediente.”

Nun ist es in der Tat kein schönes Gefühl, von einem Massenmörder erwähnt zu werden. Es ist ein Restrisiko. Die Art aber, wie eine kausale Verbindung zwischen mir und dem Autor des 1500 Seiten starken Manifests hergestellt wird, sagt vor allem etwas über die Vorstellungswelt meiner Kritiker aus. Wenn sie nicht offene Rechnungen mit mir begleichen, wie der Wiener Naschmarkt-Philosoph, dann sind sie wohl tatsächlich davon überzeugt, ich hätte Breivik zu seiner Tat animiert, ihn sozusagen auf die Idee gebracht. Leider kann ein Gegenversuch nicht unternommen werden. Was wäre aus dem großen blonden Retter des Abendlandes geworden, wenn er nicht das Interview gelesen hätte, das ich einer holländischen Zeitung gegeben habe? Wäre das Massaker ausgeblieben, hätte er sich zur Heilsarmee gemeldet und seine Waffensammlung bei eBay gegen eine Kiste Mozartkugeln getauscht?

Keiner weiß es. Und weil dem so ist, werden Binsen produziert, wie man sie in jedem Bauernkalender findet. “Der Sumpf ist nicht unbedingt Schuld an den Blüten, die auf ihm gedeihen. Aber ohne den Sumpf gäbe es diese Blüten nicht”, sagt ein bekannter Vorurteilsforscher und suggeriert damit, der Sumpf müsse trockengelegt werden. Da er aber bereits in Rente ist, bietet eine Fachfrau für Medienverantwortung ihre Dienste an: Die Meinungsfreiheit, fordert sie, müsse “neu definiert” werden. Einige dieser Reaktionen mögen dem Schock der ersten Stunden nach dem Massenmord geschuldet sein, andere sind wohlüberlegt.

Hurra, ich habe Wirkung! Ein paar Worte, die ich beiläufig in einem Interview gesagt habe, haben aus einem Versager einen Mörder gemacht. Und das empört einige meiner Kollegen nicht nur, es treibt sie in den grünen Wortneid. Anders als ich überlegen sie genau, was sie sagen und wie sie es sagen, um ihren Worten die optimale Wirkung zu verleihen. Welche Zielgruppe sie ansprechen möchten – die Arbeitslosen, die Hausfrauen oder die allein erziehenden Mütter und Väter. Um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden, feilen und differenzieren sie an ihren Texten, bis sie selber nicht mehr wissen, was sie sagen wollten. Sie nehmen an Hintergrundgesprächen teil, organisieren sich, den Synergieeffekten zuliebe, in Netzwerken – und müssen doch hilflos zusehen, dass weder das Klima noch die Politik ihren Empfehlungen folgen. Sie würden das halbe Weihnachtsgeld opfern, um wenigstens einmal von einem Minister als Ideenlieferant erwähnt zu werden.

Alles, was sie anstreben, ist Wirkung, Wirkung, Wirkung! Wenn aber das gesagte und das geschriebene Wort die Wirkung hätte, die ihm angeblich innewohnt, dann wäre in Deutschland, der Hochburg des Humanismus, das Nazi-Pack nie an die Macht gekommen. Lessings Ringparabel ist doch eher eine Aufgabe fürs Abitur und keine Handlungsanleitung.

Inzwischen möchte jeder Seriendarsteller mit seiner Arbeit die Welt “ein Stück weit” besser machen, wenn er nicht gerade für die UNICEF in Katastrophengebieten unterwegs ist, um darüber anschließend in der “Bunten” zu berichten. Und was Breivik angeht: Er hätte seine Tat auch dann begangen, wenn ich mein Leben lang nur Bastelbücher geschrieben hätte und Sarrazin nicht unter die Autoren gegangen wäre. Einige meiner Kollegen sind da anderer Meinung. Sie sind davon überzeugt, dass Worte Zutaten sind, also zu Taten führen. (Nur bei Attentätern, die sich auf den Koran berufen, machen sie eine Ausnahme.) Sie wollen die Welt verändern, natürlich zum Guten. Ich dagegen finde, die Welt ist schon genug verändert worden, jetzt kommt es wieder darauf an, sie so zu beschreiben, wie sie ist.

Melanie Phillips: Fanaticism, mass murder and the left

http://melaniephillips.com/fanaticism-mass-murder-and-the-left

Melanie Phillips: Fanaticism, mass murder and the left
26 July 2011

In the wake of the Norway atrocity and the reaction it has generated, I have
been thinking some more about hatred, fanaticism and moral confusion.

This shouldn’t need saying, but it does: there can be no excuse,
justification or rationale whatsoever for the atrocity perpetrated by Anders
Behring Breivik. The reason it unfortunately needs saying is that I have
been reading too many weaselly equivocations about this, along the lines of
‘Yes, it was indeed a most terrible atrocity and one’s heart bleeds for
those poor victims; but Norway’s politics towards Israel do stink/Norway’s
Labour Party stinks/Quisling’s country, say no more/the Islamisation of
Europe stinks/it was only a matter of time before someone was provoked by
the railroading of public opinion into doing something like this’.

No, no, no! Any variety of such ‘yes-buttery’ inescapably makes some kind of
excuse for the atrocity, however dressed up it may be in suitably pious
expressions of horror. There is never any justification for mass murder.
None. Any concerns about the Norwegian ambassador to Israel’s disgusting
comments or European Islamisation or anything else are a totally separate
matter and must be addressed through the democratic process of argument,
persuasion and public debate.

Not only can mass murder never be excused, but the notion that ‘it was only
a matter of time before someone was provoked into doing something like this’
is itself as nonsensical as it is obscene. Yes, there are a lot of people in
Europe who are angry — very angry indeed — about a whole host of things.
Some of them are decent people who are boiling with rage at being
disenfranchised by an entire political class which seems determined to
destroy their civilisation. Some of them have deeply unpleasant or racist
views about some of their fellow human beings. Some of them are so angry
they may join political groupings which resort on occasion to thuggery and
hooliganism (the BNP, EDL or the anti-globalisation riots all come to mind).
But violent as some of their behaviour may be, they would not travel to a
youth camp, invite the teenagers to gather round and then open fire on them
all with dum-dum bullets.

The suggestion that Breivik’s behaviour resulted from political rage – let
alone from reading thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Winston
Churchill – is frankly itself an opinion in need of treatment. The man is
either in the grip of a psychosis or he is a psychopath – in other words, a
grossly abnormal personality incapable of human feelings of empathy (my
money is on the latter). What he himself says about his own opinions or
state of mind therefore does not bear examination. Yet throughout the west,
apparently intelligent people have been not only ascribing to him rational
thought processes but have been poring over his own words to extract clues
about what made him do this. Repeat after me very slowly: Breivik did not
murder dozens of teenagers because he was ideologically opposed to cultural
Marxism; he mowed them down because he was grossly mentally abnormal.

In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens makes a useful point – and also
explains why the frenzy of demonisation being directed at writers and
thinkers who were name-checked in Breivik’s ‘manifesto’ is quite so vile, as
well as deeply stupid. Observing that Breivik was neither Christian nor
conservative but intended to detonate an apocalypse, Stephens writes about
this particular pathology:

What it is is millennarian: the belief that all manner of redemptive
possibilities lie on just the other side of a crucible of unspeakable chaos
and suffering. At his arrest, Breivik called his acts ‘atrocious but
necessary.’ Stalin and other Marxists so despised by Breivik might have said
the same thing about party purges or the liquidation of the kulaks.

These are the politics that have largely defined our age and which
conservatives have, for the most part, been foremost in opposing. To attempt
to tar them with Breivik’s name is worse than a slur; it’s a concession to a
killer with pretensions of intellectual sophistication. And it’s a
misunderstanding of what he was all about.

Indeed. That’s why the relationship between even ultra-nationalistic
thinking and acts of terror is very different indeed from the relationship
between Islamist radicalism and Islamic acts of terror. The former is
characterised by terrorism perpetrated in pursuit of discrete and limited
aims. The latter aims to effect an apocalypse in order to bring about the
perfection of the world. The former may be appalling in its effects but is
nevertheless fundamentally rational since its goal, however noxious, is
achievable. The latter is fundamentally irrational since its goal is a
utopian fantasy. Consequently those who are in the grip of millenarian
apocalyptic fantasies tend to be lunatics or psychopaths; and so it is as
ridiculous to ascribe the pathologically murderous behaviour of Breivik to
political rage as it would be to do so in the case of Stalin, Hitler or
Ahmadinejad.

There is however yet another aspect of the millenarian mindset which should
not be overlooked. In my book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global
Battle over God, Truth and Power I consider at some length the millenarian
fantasies not just of modern-day Islamists but also of the modern left. (I
owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Richard Landes, who generously talked
me through millenarian theories when I was writing my book some two years
ago and whose own magnificent book on the subject, Heaven on Earth: The
Varieties of Millennial Experience, has just been published.)

All the totemic creeds of today’s ‘progressive’ classes  —
environmentalism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, anti-Zionism and so on
— are millenarian, in that they all posit in their different ways the
perfection of the world (just like, in their time, the Inquisition,
Stalinism and fascism).

Consequently, today’s militantly secular leftists display some astonishing
similarities to both modern-day Islamists and medieval Christian fanatics.
There is the same belief in the Revealed Truth – Revealed, that is, to them
alone – from which no-one is permitted to dissent. Anyone who denies it is a
heretic and has to be destroyed. Because the left believes it embodies
virtue — on account of its desire to perfect the world – anyone who
dissents or opposes it is evil. Because it is Manichean, all who are not
left-wing are right-wing (even if they are in fact liberal). So all who
oppose the left are evil right-wingers who must be destroyed. That to
leftists is a moral project.

They are therefore in effect a modern secular Inquisition. They are in the
same mould as the religious and political totalitarian tyrannies of the
past; they make in this respect common cause with the Islamists whose agenda
poses a mortal threat to their own lives and liberties and most cherished
beliefs; and they share the characteristic of a closed thought system which
is totally impervious to reason and destroys all who challenge it with the
monsters of history and Anders Behring Breivik.

That is surely why the left seized upon the Norway atrocity with demented
joy and detonated a terrifying eruption of distortion and demonisation,
irrationality, hatred and sheer blood-lust as it saw in the ravings of
Anders Behring Breivik the mother and father of all smears which it could
use to crush those who refuse to surrender to cultural totalitarianism.  So
those of us who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against
their enemies found ourselves – and by implication, the many millions who
share these mainstream views – grotesquely damned as accessories to mass
murder by those who actually cheer on religious fascists and genocidal
madmen and who are set upon silencing all who resist.

The appalling actions of a Norwegian psychopath tell us next to nothing
about our society. But the reaction to that atrocity tells us a great deal
more.

Debunking 6 Myths About Anders Breivik

The Sultan has this to say:

1. Anders Behring Breivik was a Fundamentalist Christian

Breivik described himself as not a religious person and mentions praying only once. His plans leading up to the attacks involved multiple visits to prostitutes. In one section of his manifesto he clarifies what he means by Christian.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy

Breivik did call himself a Christian, but meant that in a cultural sense, rather than a theological one. He emphasized that he was not seeking a theocracy, but a secular society. His idea of a Christian Europe had nothing to do with religion.

2. Anders Behring Breivik Hated Muslims

Breivik viewed Muslims as the enemy, but only domestically. He emphasized that; “Knights Templar do not intend to persecute devout Muslims”

And he contemplated collaborating with them on terrorist attacks against Europe. “An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties… We both share one common goal.”  The Caliphate was a useful enemy for his cause.

In Breivik’s own words, this is how such an arrangement would play out;

“They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass “screenings” in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc.”

Ask yourself is these are the words of a anti-Jihadist who was fighting against Islam. Or a delusional European terrorist who was willing to ally with Jihadist against his fellow Europeans.

Breivik spells out that he is willing to kill Europeans on behalf of just about anyone…

There might come a time when we, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will consider to use or even to work as a proxy for the enemies of our enemies.

Under these circumstances, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will for the future consider working with the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout fractions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations.

Justiciar Knights and other European Christian martyrs can avoid the scrutiny normally reserved for individuals of Arab descent and we can ensure successful deployment and detonation in the location of our choice.

This should put to rest any idea that Breivik was on a crusade against Islam. He was a deluded man who imagined himself leading a takeover of Europe, even if he had to serve as a Muslim proxy to do it.

3. Anders Behring Breivik was Inspired by Counterjihad Bloggers

Except Breivik didn’t actually kill Muslims. Instead he claimed to be part of a modern Templar Knights organization that was going to take over Europe. Breivik played role playing video games obsessively. One of his favorites was Dragon Age, one of whose characters is a Templar Knight who hacks his way to power.

Did the game inspire Breivik to become a modern Templar Knight? As much as Catcher in the Rye inspired the murder of John Lennon.

Breivik was manic depressive and using steroids while obsessively acting out power fantasies. He built up a fantasy world that convinced him he could become, “…a hero of Europe… A perfect example which should be copied, applauded and celebrated. The Perfect Knight I have always strived to be.”

Trying to apply rational standards to Breivik is futile. Like many killers he was of above average intelligence, but below average sanity. Remove the politics, and Breivik fits the profile of most spree killers. He was angry at society, a loner, suffered from mental problems, abused drugs (in his case steroids) and acted out violent scenarios in violent video games.

4. Anders Behring Breivik was Pro-Israel

Breivik was in favor of allying with Israel, India and other minorities in the Muslim world as part of the struggle against Islam. The idea that he was a Zionist or felt any particular affinity for Israel is baseless. Rather Breivik describes the majority of German Jews as disloyal and suggests that if Hitler had deported them, instead of exterminating them he would have become a hero.

If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic (expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe

Breivik does mention that large numbers of Jews would have to be executed as Class A or Class B traitors, but urges targeting by political belief, rather than by race.

5. Anders Behring Breivik was a Moderate

Breivik pretended to be a moderate for tactical reasons. He explored National Socialism and formulated his own plan under another name. In his social networking, he describes, “sharing “moderate” resources from my book on debate groups to coach fellow cultural conservatives”. The quotation marks around moderate is in the original.

While most have swallowed the idea that Breivik was a counterjihadist, his actual plan was to exploit tensions over Muslim terrorism, in order to conduct a campaign of terrorism against European targets and seize power with a more stable version of National Socialism.

Breivik was not a Nazi himself, for tactical reasons, because he disagreed with Nazi expansionism. But his own plan called for the use of WMD’s in Europe and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of traitors. The echoes of the Turner Diaries are very obviously present in his manifesto.

6. Anders Behring Breivik was a Political Terrorist

Breivik was not a member of a terrorist group, except in his own fantasies. His plan was to carry out an attack and become the hero of Europe. This is fairly typical lunacy. His plans were grandiose and detached from reality.

His main target was a children’s camp, his final notes are frenzied and he mentions having his thinking clouded by steroid withdrawal.

Breivik did have a plan, but it is detached enough from reality that it can hardly be called a serious political program. He did succeed in killing a large number of people, but so have many other lunatics. Nothing that Breivik did was the work of a sound mind.

Comparisons have been made to the Unabomber, but the Columbine killers and numerous others also come to mind. Including Charles Manson. Breivik’s program was just as grandiose as Manson’s, and just as deluded. Both hoped that a serious of violent acts would touch off a larger war that would enable them to take over.

Breivik is as much a political terrorist as Manson, and can no more be considered part of any larger cause, beyond the malformed chemicals in his own brain.

The Dexter Factor

from Gates of Vienna

We all know that the mainstream media have a double standard when it comes to political ideology. If you are a conservative — or even worse, a nationalist — you are held to a different standard than that applied to progressives and socialists. Those are just the rules of the game, and it’s been that way for a long time.

The double standard was glaringly revealed when the reading preferences of the man who confessed to committing last week’s atrocities in Norway were revealed. Anyone holding the wrong political opinions — especially “Islamophobic” ones — was held indirectly responsible for the murder of all those innocent people. None of those so implicated had ever supported or advocated violence, yet their writings were deemed to be an “inspiration” for the killer.

Many thanks to our Washington correspondent Frontinus for discovering an example of the other side of this double standard: a television program which the Oslo murderer loved, and which glorified a depraved serial killer. The same program has already inspired other successful murderers — so where is the liberal outrage?

The silence is deafening.

Norway Mass Murder: The Dexter Factor
by Frontinus

The appalling killing in Norway, and its purported justification via a 1500 page “compendium” by the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik under the pseudonym “Andrew Berwick,” has let loose a remarkably well-coordinated campaign against any intellectuals who have opposed Islamisation or jihadists in Europe, a campaign pursued with meticulous precision by the New York Times, the leftwing blogs and the European press, executed against political leaders (Wilders, Merkel, Cameron, Sarkozy et al), against authors of books and opeds and essays, against human rights activists, anyone who has written or acted against violent jihad or the imposition of the violent doctrines of Shariah in western nations.

But no one is talking about the Dexter Factor, which is this: “Andrew Berwick” liked the Dexter cable series about a ruthless and completely deceptive serial killer.

A ruthless and completely deceptive killer, a narrator detailing his murderous plans, proud of his clever ability to escape detection.

“Andrew Berwick” didn’t just watch Dexter, he found it “hilarious.” He wrote: “I am currently watching Dexter, the series about that forensic mass murderer. Quite hilarious. I’m also looking forward to watch the new movie-series about Carlos the Jackal (the Marxist-Islamist and Che wannabe scumbag).” He mentioned Dexter a second time in a list of other television programs he likes, a fanboy mixing explosives chatting about his viewing habits.

The Dexter series is about a forensic analyst for the Miami Police Department, on the surface a mild-mannered and psychopathically deceptive lab technician, secretly a serial killer. A brutal, methodical, self-justifying serial killer. The Dexter series is dedicated to glamorizing serial killing, with a focus on the mechanics of execution. A show explicitly and unashamedly glamorizing evil, justifying evil, and training in the specific operations of evil. With, of course, the occasional post-modern ironic, self-referential moment of doubt, to make it all a bit more socially acceptable.

Without shame. Without abhorrence.

No shaming for Dexter’s author, directors, actors, producers, advertisers. No shaming for them for being cited in “Berwick’s” compendium, no stern demands for censorship from the New York Times or the always trendy European media.

There are several glaring discrepancies in media coverage of the heartbreaking and enraging attack in Norway, but this one is obvious: this mass murderer “Andrew Berwick,” aka “Anders Behring Breivik” was a fan of a show about a serial killer that is widely reported to have been watched by, and said to have inspired, other murderers.

Of course, why would the media ever report on that? It is, to use that always useful phrase, “an inconvenient truth.”

Some background: Dexter is based on a series of novels by Jeff Lindsay with titles like “Dexter is Delicious” and “Dearly Devoted Dexter.” It airs on the cable network Showtime and in 2008, edited reruns began running on CBS. The actor Michael C. Hall plays the main character. Producers over the years have included Daniel Cerone, Clyde Phillips, Melissa Rosenberg, Clyde Phillips and Chip Johannessen. It’s received a lot of awards and presumably earned many people lots and lots of money. Nihilistic brutality and a “how-to” on escaping detection turns out to be a winning and lucrative programming formula.

But there have been costs to all that success — borne tragically and criminally by others. Dexter had been associated with at least three other murders before it was cited by fan and mass murderer “Andrew Berwick.”

Dexter Factor Murder #1: In 2008, Johnny Brian Altinger, 38, was reported missing October 10th. On October 31st Mark Andrew Twitchell, 29, was charged with first-degree murder. You can read the details of the crime here, where CBC News reported that:

Anstey said they were led to the garage because Altinger had e-mailed a friend the directions where he was told to go, and the friend kept that e-mail.

On his Facebook page, Twitchell is revealed to be a huge fan of the Showtime program Dexter, which follows the exploits of Dexter Morgan, a blood-spatter expert for the Miami police who also leads a secret life as a serial killer.

“We have a lot of information to suggest he definitely idolizes Dexter,” Anstey said.

Anstey also alleged the police have evidence that Twitchell tried to emulate the character.

Dexter Factor Murder #2: In December 2009, 17 year old Andrew Conley confessed to murdering his 10 year old brother Conner Conley. You can read the details of the crime here. Local news station WLWT reported:

Prosecutors said Conley admitted to police that he’d fantasized about killing someone since he was in eighth grade, and compared himself to a fictional serial killer on a cable television series.

“Andrew stated that he watches a show called ‘Dexter’ on Showtime, about a serial killer,” prosecutors said in an affidavit. “He stated, ‘I feel just like him.’“

You can read the affidavit here [pdf].

Dexter Factor Murder #3: In April, 2011, Maartens van der Merwe, 24, and Chané van Heerden, 20, were arrested in Welkom, South Africa, in connection with the death of 24-year-old Michael van Eck. You can read the details of the crime here as reported in the local Afrikaans paper Nuus 24, in google translation:

Several people close to the couple has any connection to organized Satanism denies and instead focused on a history of psychological problems and a fantasy world where the two lived.

The couple loved the bloodthirsty TV series Dexter and the Van Zyl family says the couple’s relationship was a mirror image of a deadly, deadly partnership in the latest season of the TV series. …

In their world was the character Dexter Morgan and Pierce Lumen of the TV series Dexter.

Maartens van der Merwe and van Heerden Chané loved the series about a forensic bloeddeskundige which is actually a serial killer and include opkap corpses.

They met Dexter and Lumen in real life and on Facebook called.

The newly engaged couple have five season of Dexter regularly Van der Merwe’s PC views.

It develops the story in a macabre partnership between Dexter and Lumen which then begins with murder.

They are attracted to each other due to the “dark passengers” or dark side of their personality that they recognize and nurture each other.

And it’s disturbing similar to what Van Heerden and Van der Merwe had happened, said Dusty van Zyl, a close friend.

Is it free speech for Dexter’s producers to create television programming that reportedly inspires murderers — including being cited by “Andrew Berwick” before he committed a mass murder? Absolutely.

Is it hypocritical of publications across Europe — and America — to accuse those whose writings are against violence, of influencing Berwick/Breivik, while saying nothing about his enthusiasm for a program reported to have influenced at least three other murderers?

Absolutely.

Actually, I’m just curious. If asked by someone in the media or law enforcement about the Norway mass murderer’s enthusiasm for their show — what will Showtime, CBS, Daniel Cerone, Clyde Phillips, Melissa Rosenberg, Clyde Phillips, Chip Johannessen and Michael C. Hall say? That they are not responsible for being watched and cited in a madman’s ranting?

But then, if they are not responsible — if this trendy brutal show’s producers and writers are not responsible for influencing Breivik — then why are the media holding responsible these other political leaders, writers, human rights activists and journalists worldwide who oppose brutality rather than making a buck off it?

That’s the question posed by the Dexter Factor.