Events in Norway this week have seen the sharp divide in Europe between the left and the right in full focus. In the US, the budget deal has done that. But the acts of Anders Behring Breivik and those of the Republicans are not one in the same or should I say one in the sane. Below from Al Jazeera is a brilliant article that attempts to throw a net of hypocrisy over any and all arguments on the right – especially those that cloak their criminals (and Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik were indeed criminals) with the mantle of mad. Rarely has there been such an effective undercutting of the politics of the right as this:
It is significant that the target of the Norwegian “madman” appears to have been the left-leaning Labour Party, both in Oslo and on the island where the shootings took place. Across Europe, the left has been forming alliances with Muslim groups to fight fascism and racism of all kinds, and it cannot be a coincidence that The politics of multiculturalism in the new Europe, a collection of essays from across the continent, published in 1997, concluded almost without exception that “the challenge” facing Europe was the presence of large Muslim communities in “our” midst. Anyone who claims therefore, that the perpetrator’s “right-wing traits” and “anti-Muslim views”, or even links with “Christian fundamentalist” websites are irrelevant is trying to draw a veil over the unacceptable truths of such “traits” and expecting us to believe that right-wing ideology is incapable of prompting someone towards such criminality.Of course, that idea is nonsensical. Right-wing ideology was behind the Holocaust; it has been behind most anti-Semitism and other racism around the world; the notion of Europe’s and Europeans’ racial superiority - giving cultural credibility to the far-right - gave rise to the slave trade and the scramble for Africa leading to untold atrocities against “the Other”; ditto in the Middle and Far East. Ironically, it is also far-right Zionism - far from the socialist myths of Zionist pioneers in the 1930s and before - which has been behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestine throughout the 20th century, right up to today, as a specific policy to be pursued – by military means if necessary.
This is well-documented and yet ignored by our political masters. In the context of the latest apparently far-right atrocities in Norway, it is equally ironic that the word in English for a traitor who collaborates with an enemy power stems from Major Vidkun Quisling who ruled Norway on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
We dismiss this “madman” as a one-off “not linked to any international terrorist organisations” at our peril. If nothing else, history has shown us that such ideologies are trans-national across and beyond the West, with catastrophic effects on the rest of the world. We have been warned.[al Jazeera]
The author of the above is [e]ducation and media consultant Ibrahim Hewitt… the chair of trustees of the Palestinian Relief and Development fund and is Senior Editor of the Middle East Monitor. He is also a trustee of Creative Arts Schools Trust.
This is an effective argument unless you remember that extremism is not a hallmark of the West any more than Stalin was a hallmark of the Soviet bloc or Osama Bin Laden carried the burden of the entire Muslim world on his shoulders. These are societal aberrations. The bulk of humanity spends all of the ages fighting these kinds of people and their spokesmen.
They in turn spend all of their waking hours trying to bring people around to their clinically unsound ideas of the value of both their perceived enemies and their colleagues. It takes a an ability to suspend disbelief as one does in watching a play on stage to broadly paint any group as being a monolithic force for evil. Slavery exists all over the world. Indeed sexual slavery is found across Africa and the Middle East. The Chinese made slaves of the Japanese. It is a universal problem not the province of any group.
Not all westerners are imperialists. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But here we see the west as culprit because they have some kind of unsound element in their DNA that prevents them from being members in good standing of the human race. The Norwegian shooter is in jail; the King and Queen of Norway weep openly in public. This is fact.
Rham Emmanuel is no longer in Washington terrorizing congressmen in the showers on capitol hill. He has his own principality in Chicago where he is still practicing his blatantly bad ways. He is no longer nationally important or successful. Extremism does on either side for long. Witness one of Chicago’s own, the famous Weatherman of the 1960s, William Ayers who is not a national figure of import. Sirhan Sirhan who killed that lion of the left, Robert Kennedy sits in a jail to this day.
These are madmen and we MUST call them that – on both sides. If we do not than free speech will disappear from the world. You can present a viable argument for protecting your borders, trying to curb those Muslims who want to remake the world in their image, and assert the legitimacy of your value system without being viewed as racist. Somewhere between shooting people who disagree with you and civilized discussion to end others from running roughshod over your beliefs you will find the norm – the ground on which most people stand.
The above al Jazeera article allows for no tolerance and no redemption. It illustrates a lack of compassion for differing points of view and a misinterpretation of historical fact. But it is allowed and it is reproduced here for the purposes of furthering discussion and not hate. Do not try to convince us the migration from the Middle East and Africa to Europe is not purposeful in many instances to topple regimes. Gadaffi himself threatened his people in order to send them by the boat load to Italy. It is a well-known fact that many (not all) Muslims in Britain, Norway and Holland are actively encouraging immigration. In the Early years of the American republic, immigration was handled on a percentage basis in an effort, however misguided, to be fair to all who wanted to come and to maintain multiculturalism.
The influx of Mexicans at our southern border is in many cases state endorsed in order to populate and take the southwest back. This has been documented. Former Mexican President Vincente Fox spoke to this directly. So don’t attempt to paint all non-Europeans as innocents. They are not now and never have been. To take advantage of this tragedy to spill this kind of venom is beyond civilized norms.
wdednh
July 24, 2011
Great post my friend
samhenry
July 24, 2011
Happy Sunday and good to see you wedednh.
samhenry
July 24, 2011
Wdednh – I mistakenly published the above article before it was finished.
roblorinov
July 25, 2011
Excellent post SH
Madmen exist in all societies, in all faiths, and in all ideologies. No society, faith, or ideology is immune from insanity carried to the extreme. I read this guys “manifesto.” Obviously he is a member of some supremist group called the Knights Templar and this group fancies themselves to be the reincarnations of the historical Templars. Maybe so or maybe not. My bet is on the later. Of course in Mexico we now have the drug gang La Familia emerging and regrouping again and now calling themselves the Knights Templar. And then there are all of those freemason orgs saying they are the Knights Templar. So who is really the contemporary Templars LOL? Give me a break!
Fact is this: ANYONE who slaughters innocent people (especially children) no matter what their reason, beliefs, religion, ideology, culture, race, etc) is a TERRORIST in my book and should be put to death WITHOUT trial or jail. Immediate EXECUTION is the solution to these lunatics, otherwise known as Instant JUSTICE! Enough of the lunacy! And as for Al Jazeera I do not frequent them often as I find them VERY RACISTS and VERY anti-other-than-Muslim! They like the rest of the mainstream slant the news and skew the facts to fit THEIR agenda which is clearly a racist one and pro-Muslim one. Just more tabloid GARBAGE in my book.
samhenry
July 26, 2011
So glad to see you here again, my dear Lorinov. And with a fiery and fine response.
roblorinov
July 27, 2011
LOL but of course my dear
blackwatertown
July 28, 2011
I take your point about anyone who carries out or urges such an atrocity as being b definition an aberration or mad. Sadly, I’m not sure if I agree with the aberration argument. Too often many people have willingly participated in horror – Hutu Force in Rwanda, “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” as detailed by Daniel Goldhagen in his book of the same name. Perhaps one could put that down to temporary madness – but that’s an excuse rather than an explanation I think.
So it is worth investigating how people are influenced and desensitized or prepared for horrific actions – which means it is worth looking at ideologies, religions, etc – or subsections of them – that devalue human life compared to the “cause”. I do not see this as the preserve of the right or left. For Hitler take Stalin or Mao.
I also find it reassuring when – for instance, people on the Right (or left, or Muslims, or Christians, etc), instead of getting into whataboutery (“yeah, but what about what you did…”) or defensive self-justification – instead of that, they target their fire on the extremists on their own side. That’s more convincing of bona fides and more effective a routing them out.
roblorinov
July 28, 2011
There are several studies done over the years concerning desensitizing people to horrific actions such as murder, rape, etc. Television and movies have figured prominently in most of them as a primary “tool” for desensitization. The entertainment industry as fought this as expected claiming they are not to blame. However, they ARE to blame in part IMO. There is a long standing bit of wisdom in Social Psychology that says when we present the idea and that idea is entertained by a person the idea becomes more and more acceptable in the person’s mind. Thus begins the process of desensitization and it’s all down hill from there. This I would say explains in part how people can commit such horrible acts against others.
Another part of the equation has to do with morals and values and the lack thereof. Oh yes, talk to any family or friend of a killer or rapist and they’ll tell you how surprised they are by his/her actions, how they went to church every Sunday, how they had morals and values, etc etc etc
That’s all fine and well but the question is was that person putting on a show for some reason and pretending? Did that person internalize those morals and values? Or was that person simply pretending they held to morals and values out of fear of rejection or punishment by family/friends? Most likely such a person did NOT internalize values and morals so this is part of the problem as well.
And, of course, there is mental illness which must be figured into the equation as to why/how people can commit such horrible acts against others. And there is a whole range of mental illnesses to consider along with psychotic sociopathy etc. Bottomline is this, human beings are complex creatures and what may appear to be a simple explanation for one’s behavior is usually illusion. There are many contributing factors as to why someone would do what this guy did. Does that make him innocent? Of course not. Should he pay the price for his crime. Of course!
One final thing I will say is this: hate and extremism are powerful desensitizers and motivators for committing acts of atrocity. Extremism is insanity or close to it as far as I’m concerned. It presents the idea that someone is “the enemy” and then demonizes that someone and makes the idea of killing more acceptable as a solution in a crazed mind. Suddenly killing becomes an option no matter who is killed or how many. And how does one deal with self when one kills? He/she justifies himself or herself and his/her actions as “righteous” meaning “right” but the concept of righteousness in the killers mind is skewed to begin with, no?
Ok you can get up off the couch now and see me next week. BTW did you hate your mother? LOL Sorry I just had to let the Freud in me come out a bit
samhenry
July 28, 2011
Roo your points do expand thought and are welcome. As for “henchmen” of madmen, that does bear watching but I think some of those types are I can never remember the name of people who torture small animals, etc. AND they are criminals in the truest sense. But they are led by a mesmerizing leader. Any race or nation of people can engage in a holocaust.. A psychiatrist told me it is as simple as teaching those people that their enemies are less than human which is the view of Jews by Hitler and his kind.
That said, I am proud to say that in my essay I admitted that western Europeans did terrible things but were a society that legislated away their own bad habits to help ensure it never happened again. We allow museums to the holocaust to ensure that. I think some of what the US does in war and in commerce are less than stellar but we and the Brits have led the way to legislate away the black hole of Calcutta syndrome and slavery. This is important and cannot be glossed over.
It goes without saying that Muslims etc. are deserving of respect but the idealogues among them who are calling for taking over the cultures and peoples of the world are no better than Hitler or any other extremest. Beheadings, stonings – these are cruelties in which the west does not engage.
So I did not rail back as much as I gave another point of view. Sorry you cannot see that and the genius of it and the righteousness of what the Anglo law system has wrought.
roblorinov
July 28, 2011
SH yes it is a simple matter of teaching people that their enemies are less than human (ie: demonization of one’s enemies). That’s exactly what Rev Jim Jones did, et al, and we all know the end of that horror. Hitler did the same as have many others in human history. As for the extremists in Islam calling for conquest and acts of terror, yes, they are no better than Hitler himself. Many Nazi’s escaped after the war with many ending up in Syria and other Muslim nations. Looks like they taught the Arab population well, no? The Anglo law system is perhaps the greatest system of law in history. I agree. It strives for rightness and fairness unlike most other law systems.