Oslo Explosion II

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?

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

@ 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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

@ 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.

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 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.

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. 

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

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

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

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.

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/

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).

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 repeatable

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?

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..."

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

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

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....

#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

"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."