Oslo Explosion II

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
disenchanted

The level of gun crimes keep mounting on our formerly quiet city especially since this new government took over (in the name of gun-owner rights, they must have instructed border services to ignore handguns flowing from the US as there are many more around now).

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Article/b/20262/Ricks-Rants-Thursday-J...

So this culture and events of this sort are not far off here as well, as economic insecurity with no provision of good opportunities for all will worsen (though not cause) absurd hateful ethnic scapegoating and violence.

disenchanted

The level of gun crimes keep mounting on our formerly quiet city especially since this new government took over (in the name of gun-owner rights, they must have instructed border services to ignore handguns flowing from the US as there are many more around now).

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Article/b/20262/Ricks-Rants-Thursday-J...

So this culture and events of this sort are not far off here as well, as economic insecurity with no provision of good opportunities for all will worsen (though not cause) absurd hateful ethnic scapegoating and violence.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Unionist wrote:
What he did was horrible. But to call it a "political crime", just because he said it was, is to ignore history and real political trends. I think, too, it is to give a pass to the really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom, equality, justice, and progress everywhere. Their face is not the face of McVeigh or Breivik. I could be wrong, but I need to hear reasoned argument and see some evidence.

I don't understand this. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "political crime." Can you clarify? My take is the exact opposite: that crimes like this indict "the really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom," etc. This is the direct product of their policies, actions and rhetoric--the perfection of their violent ideology.

@Smith, I should clarify that when I say that repeating the killer's words is repeating fascist language, I'm not attaching a moral judgment or saying you shouldn't do it--just that it's not an ethically empty action (which I think is ikosmos's point also). There's a risk when repeating the words of the derranged of not simply holding them up for criticism, but taking a perverse pleasure in their horror. Like the endlessly repeated images of 9/11, at what point do we stop watching them for information and start watching them for pleasure?

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

It's interesting that white Christian men are individuals, who act individually and independently. They alone are allowed to be autonomous and above the influence of racist, sexist, Islamophobic Western cultures. How charming. How delightful.

But the rest of us don't get such assumptions prevailed upon us.

 

Caissa

Norwegian police are investigating claims by Anders Behring Breivik, who has admitted carrying out Friday's twin attacks in Norway, that he has "two more cells" working with him.

Mr Breivik made the claim at his first court hearing since the bombing in Oslo and massacre at an island youth camp.

Police have now revised down the island killings from 86 to 68 but increased the bomb death toll by one to eight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14280210

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Maysie wrote:

It's interesting that white Christian men are individuals, who act individually and independently. They alone are allowed to be autonomous and above the influence of racist, sexist, Islamophobic Western cultures. How charming. How delightful.

Well said.

6079_Smith_W

@ Catchfire

In the first place, it has been three days since the attack, hardly time for endless repetitions.

And secondly inverted pyramid-style news pieces are not the forum for analysis,  editorializing, or moral judgment. Even so, if there is one which casts his words in a positive light, or with no context of his politics, his biases,  or his obsession, I would sure like to see it as evidence to back up this claim of "fascist propaganda". For that matter, does his one statement of "gruesome but necessary" constitute propaganda at all? I actually had to go to that manifesto to find out what his actual ideas were.

Thirdly, saying that his words should not be reported begs the question of who decides what gets censored, and what information is too dangerous. By that standard one could also say that an organization like Wikileaks is also promoting fascism and imperialism, because they are publicizing backroom chatter of diplomats. And should we not be allowed to read Harper's writings from his days with the National Citizens Coalition because they promote right-wing ideology?

Or is it okay for those of us who are well-read enough, but not for the regular  people on the street who are too impressionable, and can be led about like lemmings?

And really, who is going to obey any such rule? You know as well as I do that no journalist, right or left, is going to leave a key piece of information like that unreported. Sorry, I'll say it again, and add, that the accusation is ridiculous, baseless, and the alternative absurd, and an unworkable double standard.

And if you allow that if might be okay to report it, it kind of begs the question of what that "fascist propaganda" accusation means.

But clearly we are just going to disagree on this one. 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-a-perfect-product-o... Behring Breivik, a perfect product of the Axis of Islamophobia[/url]
by Max Blumenthal

Quote:
When I wrote my analysis last December on the "Axis of Islamophobia," laying out a new international political network of right-wing ultra-Zionists, Christian evangelicals, Tea Party activists and racist British soccer hooligans, I did not foresee a terrorist like Anders Behring Breivik emerging from the movement's ranks. At the same time, I am not surprised that he did. The rhetoric of the characters who inspired Breivik, from Pam Geller to Robert Spencer to Daniel Pipes, was so eliminationist in its nature that it was perhaps only a matter of time before someone put words into action.

As horrific as Breivik's actions were, he can not be dismissed as a "madman." His writings contain the same themes and language as more prominent right-wing Islamophobes (or those who style themselves as "counter-Jihadists") and many conservatives in general.

 

 

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

Unionist wrote:
What he did was horrible. But to call it a "political crime", just because he said it was, is to ignore history and real political trends. I think, too, it is to give a pass to the really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom, equality, justice, and progress everywhere. Their face is not the face of McVeigh or Breivik. I could be wrong, but I need to hear reasoned argument and see some evidence.

I don't understand this. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "political crime." Can you clarify? My take is the exact opposite: that crimes like this indict "the really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom," etc. This is the direct product of their policies, actions and rhetoric--the perfection of their violent ideology.

Ok. Let me illustrate. Two examples:

1. Richard Colvin Reid tries to blow up a commercial airliner. When foiled and detained, he claims to be a member of Al Qaeda. Question: Was this a "political crime"? Did it "indict" some really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom? Or is it the kind of stuff that just happens, isn't part of any organized movement or campaign, doesn't produce copycat or other repetitions, and is (always) used as a pretext for whatever the ruling powers want to accomplish in terms of propaganda, suppression of rights, etc.? Question 2: Would the answer have been different if Reid's attempt had succeeded?

Hint: My personal answer is that Reid's attempt was not "political" in any sense except the sense in which I stated earlier - that all such individual random acts take place within a political context. It wasn't part of anything, and it didn't prove any particular threat or danger inherent in "fundamentalist extremist" Muslim organizations.

Neither, until further evidence emerges, does Breivik's action prove anything about how dangerous the anti-immigrant neo-fascist right in Europe is right now. That's my opinion, Catchfire. I understand and respect yours. Please try to reciprocate.

2. Workers are engaged in a long, bitter strike with Employer X. Employer X is brazening out, using scabs. One day, several scabs are killed by an explosion. A worker is charged and found guilty of murder. True story (anyone doesn't know the details, I'll furnish them, including the court decisions.)

Question: Was this a "political crime"? Was this a "trade union crime"? Did it signal some violent trend in labour relations in Canada? Did it expose some threat or danger in the union movement that society needs to deal with?

My answer: Hell, no. It happened. There was a context - but it was the act of a disturbed person. The MSM of course tried to pin it on the union. They failed.

So, now, my belaboured point: Breivik's actions prove nothing and confirm nothing about the "extreme right" in Europe. I will judge them by their reprehensible programs, their dangerous actions, and not by his - until proof emerges that he and his actions actually represent anything.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

Neither, until further evidence emerges, does Breivik's action prove anything about how dangerous the anti-immigrant neo-fascist right in Europe is right now.

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/106ye1l.gif[/IMG]

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I tend to agree with you Unionist but in your analysis you failed to take into account the culture of a hard rock miner.  Bombing humans even scabs is always wrong and not to be condoned.  However I grew up in a mining town where union passion ran high.  The strikes for pensions and benefits were long and caused great hardship to many families.  One of the standard techniques that individual miners used, that was not even condoned with a nod and a wink from the union, was as soon as negations started the powder magazines would have large quantities of explosives go missing.  I worked in the mines in the late sixties and I can tell you the companies did not want to fuck with hard rock miners.  I believe it was because they feared a subset of miners who didn't care about the rules.

Fast forward to Ms. Piggy being the first to scab a hard rock mine in Canada post WWII and my reaction was oh my god someone is going to get killed. Not I hope someone is going to get killed but rather a comment on the inevitability of the reaction from a certain subset of the miners.  

This mans place in an international culture of hate and violence against a definable group is very relevant to his actions.  When it becomes ingrained in a culture it inevitably leads to someone believing they are justified in doing violence.  The MSM in NATO counties have created a culture that makes this likely. Pretending that he is just a person with mental health issues means that the root caused of his empowerment to do evil does not get properly analysed.

remind remind's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Maysie wrote:
It's interesting that white Christian men are individuals, who act individually and independently. They alone are allowed to be autonomous and above the influence of racist, sexist, Islamophobic Western cultures. How charming. How delightful.

Well said.

I agree.

 

 

Merowe

Eh. This weaponized loser spends an afternoon calmly stalking and shooting to death nearly a hundred blameless youth - textbook definition of 'fuckin' crazy' if you ask me. I mean, this guy has bits missing from his head; he's not all there. A normal person can't do a thing like that. You have to train them.

But why can't that coexist with the cold and rational execution of a political act? Last I looked, the North American political scene isn't just littered with crazy people, it's led by them.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

@Smith

I don't think you read what I wrote, since you are still seem to think I am advocating censorship. Of course, I've said nothing of the sort. I am simply highlighting the risks involved in parroting the killer's words without comment or analysis (exactly the opposite of what WikiLeaks does, which releases information in close contact with journalists and publications it trusts). It's a minor point, in fact, but one you can't seem to concede without inflating into a baroque debate on censorship.

@Unionist

I certainly wouldn't make a cut-and-dry comparison between, to use your examples, Reid and Islamic Fundamentalism or the miner and the inherent violence of the labour movement, but neither would I say that such incongruity means the crimes weren't political. We simply need to look deeper at what prompted these people to pick the political motives they did for the crimes they were compelled to commit. Fascist anti-immigrant rhetoric is violent, so the lines are easier to draw. The lines in your examples are more camouflaged, but the alienation imposed by American imperialism on people living with mental illness or even on workers generally is easy to identify. Certainly with your first example the narratives employed by Reid are in full display by Western media and politicians--the question I'd ask is why did Reid feel it  necessary to use them the way he did? Of course it's political--what else could it be?

 

6079_Smith_W

Maysie correctly points out a double standard.

But that is not the same thing as saying that prejudging a person or a situation is a good thing. 

That said, in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting there was no shortage of commentary linking the accused, a white male, to various social pressures and movements. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Merowe wrote:
 

A normal person can't do a thing like that. You have to train them.

But why can't that coexist with the cold and rational execution of a political act? Last I looked, the North American political scene isn't just littered with crazy people, it's led by them.

Yes we have many trained killers occupying Afghanistan. The best of them go on to great careers as mercenaries in the pay of oil companies. They all share the ability to dehumanize to the point that they can kill indiscriminately.  

The Milgram experiments that show over two thirds of normal people willing to inflict pain on others because they were told to by authority figures highlights that there is a thin line that as a society we dare not cross.

6079_Smith_W

@ Catchfire. 

Perhaps that's because you're putting a bit of a velvet glove on Ikosmos's position. 

They are broadcasting fascist ideology , but it's okay for them to keep doing that because we don't believe in censorship? Again, what is the accusation supposed to mean if it means nothing? Just another excuse to use that red-hot "fascist" word to blame the media? What are they doing wrong if it's okay?

And again, I disagree that coverage has been devoid of critical analysis. Please show me one of these pieces with no context whatsoever. Go to any news story on this and there are links to in-depth analysis that you don't get in a straight news story.

Most importantly, I think the claim that it is a threat to some people because they might hear or read the words and "the damage is done" is  elitist, insulting and presumptous.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I see my name at the top of your post but I don't see any of my arguments underneath it.

Polunatic2

Quote:
Was this a "political crime"?

In my view, it appears to be "political" because the targets were representatives or supporters of a political party which the killer associated with Norwegian policies. At the same time, it appears to be a political crime commited by an individual acting on his own. The second reason Ii would label it as "political" is because the discussions I'm seeing and hearing in the right-wing press and talk radio has emboldened the anti-immigranti, anti-Muslim bigots who are "concerned" about losing their privilege and who have a political agenda. 

Noah_Scape

Stockholm wrote:
But the point has to be restated again and again. He isNOT a "mad man". He committed a mass murder to prove a political point and knew exactly what he was doing. Breivik is no different from any of the 9/11 hijackers.

Ok, but the OTHER POINT is that 9 11 hijackers and Breivik ARE mad because they believe their ideas are so totally waterproof that "everyone who does not agree must DIE".

A disconnect with reality, and a total sidestepping of the fact that all people have conscious minds and therefore the right to form opinions [without dying for it].

6079_Smith_W

@ Noah Scrape

There are enough completely sane people who have sanctioned murder and even mass-killing. Fanaticism, and killing someone for your beliefs is not the same thing as mental illness.

 

 

Polunatic2

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There are enough completely sane people who have sanctioned murder and even mass-killing. Fanaticism, and killing someone for your beliefs is not the same thing as mental illness.

Canadian foreign policy comes to mind. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

In the USSR anyone who disagreed with their political system was locked up for being insane.  Seems the western press and some of our leaders share the same view of people who are actively committed to political change.  

This man is no more insane than thousands of special ops forces killing villagers all over the planet.  He just has a less sophisticated support system. 

6079_Smith_W

Polunatic2 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There are enough completely sane people who have sanctioned murder and even mass-killing. Fanaticism, and killing someone for your beliefs is not the same thing as mental illness.

Canadian foreign policy comes to mind. 

Or even up close and personal - Thomas More having a tree in his garden where he used to torture heretics because he felt  it helped his faith - doing horrible things to other people is not necessarily a sign of insanity at all.

 

dacckon dacckon's picture

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2011/07/youth-c...

 

When will Glenn Beck just die in a fire and go away?

Lefauve

dacckon wrote:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2011/07/youth-c...

 

When will Glenn Beck just die in a fire and go away?

Just forget that idiot, most people who know that men know that he's a sold out and those who believe him are most of them are very idiot.

So just don't mind them.

Idiocy is uncurable!

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Quote:
...

McVeigh and Breivik are bloody reminders that Western culture’s original sin—the presumption of supremacy—is alive and well and clenching many a trigger. It’ll be easy in coming days, as it was in 1995, to categorize the demons as exceptions unrepresentative of their societies. Easy, but false. Norway, like much of Europe, like the United States, is in the grips of a disturbing resurgence of right-wing fanaticism.  “The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity,” The Times reports, “has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals.”

It’s convenient duplicity. The parties don’t explicitly condone violence. But they would have no appeal without explicitly endorsing beliefs of supremacy and projecting the sort of scorn and hatred for those who fall outside the tribe that cannot but lead to violence or the sort of fractured society we’ve become so familiar with. Those “Take Back America” bumper stickers share most of their DNA with the same strain of rejectionist white Europeans who think their culture is being bankrupted by Socialism and immigrants....

http://flaglerlive.com/25667/pt-mcveigh-breivik

Doug

Unionist wrote:

What he did was horrible. But to call it a "political crime", just because he said it was, is to ignore history and real political trends. I think, too, it is to give a pass to the really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom, equality, justice, and progress everywhere. Their face is not the face of McVeigh or Breivik. I could be wrong, but I need to hear reasoned argument and see some evidence.

 

How is it not a political crime? The attempt was made to blow up the office building of Norway's leading politician followed by the shooting of young activists from his party. It was intended to have a certain political effect - not that it's likely to have the effect intended, but such was the plan.

[Post edited for formatting by Catchfire]

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Hold your horses there, Doug. I don't believe that I ever said what you quoted as being my post.

If anything, I have stated that I think it is definitely a politically inspired crime. In fact, I agreed with the excerpt of the article I posted that this kind of threat has grown in Europe and North America.

Lefauve

I don't think that we should classified murder with specified motivation. We already got a clasification system for murder and it do job just find!

A first degree murder is a first degree murder what ever the motivation.

They can be only one exception and it for compassion murder!

disenchanted

The link between the two major stories - how the extreme rhetoric of Murdoch and other media chains contributes to hatred which can lead to mass killings: http://www.csmonitor.com/World​/Backchannels/2011/0725/Norweg​ian-terrorist-stirs-multicultu​ralism-opponents
Glen Beck as usual outdid them all: http://www.nationalconfidentia​l.com/20110725/video-glenn-bec​k-compares-attacked-norway-you​th-camp-to-hitler-youth/

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Billy Bragg wrote:
Just watched the leader of the EDL being interviewed on Newsnight via YouTube. He's now been on twice - which I don't have a problem with - but on neither occasion have the BBC put up someone to counter his position. Why is this? Where is the balance? Following the terrible events in Norway, I trust that the govt will now take seriously the threat that the EDL pose to our society.

Apparently, I'm not the only leftist who's noticed this shite. Thank you, Billy Bragg. (See his Facebook account for this quote. )

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Yay for Billy Bragg. Why is there a failure for the mainstream media to counter the position of the right wing (which has become extremely virulent in their opposition to immigration and multicuturalism and all things Islamic in recent years).

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

laine lowe wrote:

Yay for Billy Bragg. Why is there a failure for the mainstream media to counter the position of the right wing (which has become extremely virulent in their opposition to immigration and multicuturalism and all things Islamic in recent years).

Follow the money and power.  The west is currently engaged in a major attempted theft of other peoples resources.  The media is just doing its part to make us all fell righteous as our elite plunder the world.

howeird beale

And lets not forget that that sack of impetigo Glen Beck worked for Murdoch.

Reading the comments in that link. Christ, some of the shit he's done, its not repeatableCry

bekayne

 And you can’t allude to bizarre derision without acknowledging Glenn Beck, whose unconscionable remarks exceed all the others by disparaging the actual teenage victims even before they have been laid to rest: “As the thing started to unfold, and then there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth, or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics?”

Well, for one there is Glenn Beck’s own 912 Project that sponsors the Tampa Liberty School, a Tea Party-themed getaway for schoolchildren ages 8-12. But that doesn’t excuse Beck’s inference that the slaughtered campers were akin to Hitler’s youth brigades.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151774/8_dumbest_most_insensitive_rightwing_reactions_to_the_norway_shooting?page=2

NDPP

Was the Massacre in Norway a Reaction to BDS?

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july252011/norway-bcs-ga.php

 "...Being an admirer of Israel, Behring Breivik does appear to have treated his fellow countrymen in the same way the IDF treats Palestinians...

...The full facts of the Norweigian tragedy are, as yet, unknown, but the message should by now be transparently and urgently clear to all of us. Western intelligence agencies must immediately crackdown on Israeli and Zionist operators in our midst, and regarding the terrible acts of the weekend, it must be made absolutely clear who it was that spread such hate and promoted such terror, and for what reasons."

 

'Protest Against Radical Islam in the Toronto Public Schools, Monday July 25, 5:30-7:00 PM, Toronto District School Board Head Office'

http://jdlcanada.wordpress.com/

How long do we avert our eyes in wilful blindness and pretend it can't happen here?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Attack in Norway reveal world of hate - Ahmed Moor in Aljazeera

The author points out how much reactionary bigotry has infected (so-called) mainstream thought in the USA. Then there is this:

Moor wrote:
The meme that underpins their worldview goes something like this: "Muslims are bad. When bad things happen, Muslims are responsible." This is a mainstream view in the US today; it cuts across party lines.

That the purported American left maintains this bigoted outlook is an indication of how successful the right has been at constructing the stage upon which public debate is conducted. Two main anti-Muslim talking points are now taken for granted in this country: First, all terrorists in the West are Muslims; second, we are in the midst of a global civilisational war. These are the dual planks upon which Uncle Sam squats in his Afghani outhouse.

Samuel Huntington and other ideological conservatives have tried to justify a bigoted "clash of civilizations". This author takes an interesting approach to such hate-mongering. Yes, there is a clash of views alright. But it's between the right-wing bigots and normal people.

Quote:
Objective sources have done an excellent job of discrediting the first of the two claims that inform the 21st century American experience. The second point however - that we are engaged in a war of civilisations - is one that I agree with. But the combatants are not Islam and the West. Instead, the war is between the normal, sane people of the world and the right-wing zealots who see doom, destruction, hellfire and God's Will at every turn.

Anders Behring Breivik, Mohammed Atta and Baruch Goldstein are all cut from the same rotten cloth. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Glenn Beck - the peddlers of the faith - all share the same core afflictions.

These men are insecure, violently inclined, and illiberal. The outside world scares them. They hate homosexuals and strong women. For them, difference is a source of insecurity. Their values are militarism, conformism, chauvinism and jingoism. Worst of all they seek to pressure us into compliance while they work frantically to destroy themselves - and the rest of us with them.

I have to disagree slightly here. There's a real effort to RECRUIT women, any way they can, and if they can find right wing women who share the hate then the right wing bigots are happy to recruit and use them.  Ann Coulter. And other "journalists" who are willing to join in the hate.

And who's winning the war of hate?

Quote:
All indications are that the hate-mongers - who are on the same side of this war, irrespective of religion - are winning in America. The unreflective, superficial, wan editors of the NYT are an indication of just how successful the right wing has been at eviscerating the left.

Moor goes on to point out that the Norwegian government isn't following this narrative of hate and should be commended for that. I'm fine with that ... as long as they're able to shoot back if they need to.

Anyway, this different read on the conservative "insprired" clash of civilizations is useful. Next time a right wing bigot, or one of their useful idiots spouts this hate, it might be useful to point out the real divide: between the right wing bigots and the rest of us.

 

NDPP

Anders Behring Breivik: A Disturbing Ideology

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/07/25/anders-behring-breivik-a-distu...

"Let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists..."

6079_Smith_W

@ NDPP

Good article, however, I wouldn't say that the entire mainstream media has simply treated him like a lone deranged person and ignored his connections to the radical right.

I think some have definitely done that (I knew exactly what Rex Murphy was going to say last night, and sadly I was correct). There are just as many who have correctly seen this as an indication of the influence, if not the direct hand of the radical right and political parties. 

So of course some people are shuting there eyes, and there are theories and spin about this attack from all sides. But to say that "according to the mainstream media this "we" (the radical right) does not exist" is a gross oversimpliification. And it is false.

I have heard two reports already - one on CBC rado - in which it was pointed out that the ideas in Breivik's manifesto are not that different from the platform of the Norwegian Progress Party, which has considerable support in that country. It hardly gets clearer than that that he does not simply represent a radical fringe, but a threat which is already part of the mainstream.

Of course if the point of the exercise is to slam the media rather than to expose the radical right  (or if one has already stopped monitoring media) one is probably only going to hear and see what they have chosen to hear and see.

Nor is it accurate to imply that it is a case of people being led about by the media and nothing else. To a certain degree people of all stripes choose what they want to believe and gravitate to that story.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Norwegian Progress Party has talked of an alliance with the organization that Breivik has been an active member of. I think it's called Fremskrittspartiet and should the Norwegian conservatives be able to form a government after the next election, it will probably be with the support of Fremskrittspartiet.

Quote:
Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian petty bourgeois. He went to business school in Norway and runs a small business. He was evidently not short of money, as he bought a farm, on which his small business was run, which had previously been used by elements in the criminal underwold as a marijuana plantation. The plantation was also connected to a famous bank robbery (NOKAS robbery). Probably in preparation for yesterday's events Breivik bought six tonnes of artificial fertiliser, which is commonly used for home-made bombs, on May 4th, using his farming business as cover.

He is also a right-wing extremist. He was an active member of the racist Fremskrittspartiet, which is currently running at 20% or so in the polls, and their youth organisation, supposedly for 10 years, until 2007. He's an opponent of multi-culturalism and viciously anti-Muslim. He has apparently suggested recreating the US Tea Party in Europe and expressed support for the English Defence League.

Norwegian massacre

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Spiegel Online International wrote:
He was a prolific contributor to extremist blogs and had ties to right-wing populists: The murderer from Norway did not, it would seem, come out of nowhere. Rather, he had found an ideological home among those seeking to cleanse Europe of Islam and multi-culturalism. They are seeking to distance themselves.

Blogging Hate: Anders Breivik's Roots in Right-Wing Populism

The Manifesto, rather than some individual ramblings kept to himself, is at least in part a cut-and-paste of right-wing populist views from around the world, USA, UK, etc.

Quote:
Breivik's central thesis is drawn from theories propounded by U.S. Christian Right icons William S. Lind and the late Paul Weyrich , founder of the Free Congress Foundation, and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation. Weyrich, along with Lind, developed an aggressive theory of cultural conservatism as a way to save western culture. Breivik's manifesto, compiled under the name "Andrew Berwick," includes excerpts from Lind's conspiracist "Cultural Marxism" essay for the Free Congress Foundation.

Breivik, in this light, is more of a soldier in the Christian Right Culture Wars.

The Norway Attacks - "Marketing" the Christian Right Cultural War

Breivik - Soldier in the Christian Right Cultural Wars

NDPP

The Political Establishment and the Oslo Massacre

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/pers-j27.shtml

"The establishment political parties and media have been busy covering their tracks following the massacre in Oslo last Friday...

Despite - or, more accurately, because of - Breivik's explicitly fascist agenda and his well known ultra-right associations, the media is at great pains to obscure the political issues raised by his atrocity and portray him as nothing more than a lone psychopath..."

 

examples:

Ezra Levant, Michael Coren Deal With the Monster of Oslo (vid)

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=35984

Who's To Blame For Norway's Tragedy? - by Margaret Wente

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/article2109213.ece

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Well.  As in any major event, people will try to sculpt it into a statement supporting an attack on those they are opposed to, or use it to reinforce already held beliefs.   And we, as much as we feel are right about certain things, run a danger of doing exactly that in our cause.

I'd like to think this shows the visciousness of the right wing press, how they created a certain zietgiest where a person such as this felt justified in killing socialists,-- just as I am certain mysogynist columnists inspired Mark Lepine to murder women at Ecole Polytechnique,-- but we must be most skeptical of the things we'd like to believe.

What we need is some fairly direct evidence, some good linkage, and to stick to that and not go clutching at any straws.

Lest we take on the artiface of the enemies we so despise.

 

I couldnt read any more before reading this thrice.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Catchfire wrote:

I think reducing this crime to the level of the individual is just about the worst mistake you can make in a situation like this. When Kimveer Gill shot up Dawson College in Montreal in 2006, the Toronto Star published a headline the following day declaring "Shooter loved guns, hated people." As if that was that. As if we could relegate school shootings, their pathology and epidemic, to the freak behaviours and desires of a lunatic--of an individual. As if we, as a society, didn't fail this individual catastrophically.

When I see tragic events like this, I see the underside of ideology. Leftists are constantly pointing out the violence of capitalism, imperialism, etc., but any time we see a horrific crime like this one, I see it as the part and parcel of our quotidian experience--a distillations of the blood and horror in which we participate and are complicit every day.

When Oedipus realizes that he was guilty of the crimes sickening his nation, irrespective of intent, he rips out his own eyes and shows them, bleeding, to the people of Thebes. When I read about people like this monster, I think: they're showing us our eyes.

oh fuck it just gets better, i gotta google now...sigh....

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Sineed wrote:

But this guy ultimately shot all these kids because he liked doing it.  Politics is merely the candy coating.

I don't share this view. I think his politics and racism is at the central core of this tragedy and to just say it is personal is to miss the threat that these kinds of people are to anyone on the left.   It like calling Hitler a madman and discounting his fascist ideology as motivation for his crimes against humanity. 

Clifford Olsen fits your description but not McVeigh or other right wing terrorists.  There are grey areas of course so Idi AMin for example is hard to put into one catergory or the other. 

What about animal-rights activists who mail bombs and razor blades to farmers and scientists? Does their terrorism warrant analysis within the context of the overall ideology of animal liberation?

Or are they just misguided nutbars, who no one could have expected to take phrases like "Meat is Murder" seriously?

 

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Department_(animal_rights)]link[/url]

Interesting question,i abhor the term "nutbar", although I can take "Meat is Murder" seriously.

We should all eat more vegetables, me, especially.

Commas for the crowd.

howeird beale

#94 to 96

Uhhh... what?

------------------------------------------

Anyway, its heartening to see the comments about Ms. Wente's latest illinformed idiotoryal are almost universally negative, of the 40 I skimmed through, I'd say 38 called her a hypocrite or a fool. "no significant right wing... in Norway" huh Peggy?

Books are not your friends

NDPP

ps maybe Peggie Atwood and Atom Egyoyan can contribute some of their many, bloody, Dan David Prize zio-dollars they defied BDS for..., obviously all is forgiven and forgotten on that score and she's back to 'literary icon' status - canuckleheads have short memories, especially since most probably never even heard of it in the first place - speaking of cultural matters, I noticed Egoyan's sometime producer Robert Lantos lent his august presence to the JDL TDSB protest and JDL mosqueteria vid. Speaking of the JDL-EDL Zio-Nazis, Breivik and their ilk, here's another fellow traveller..

Ex Berlusconi Minister Defends Anders Behring Breivik

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/ex-berlusconi-minister-defen...

"Northern League member says Norweigian killer's ideas are in defence of western civilisation..."

very likely

howeird beale

"Northern League member says Norweigian killer's ideas are in defence of western civilisation..."


"I think it would be a good idea."
Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization
and in looking for that quote, some others which are hauntingly pertinent:
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
and something which should be Babble's motto:
"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."



NDPP

[Western] Civilization is something which was imposed on a resisting majority by a minority which understood how to take possession of the means to power and coercion.."  S Freud

Pages

Topic locked