Norwegian Terrorism

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

So if we take a killer like Breivik to be 'evil', what do we say about a well paid national commentator who can attract sizeable crowds in Washington who after the event characterises the victims as Hitler Youth?

[Lalaith]

Well, I tend to think of Glenn Beck on the evil spectrum, to be sure. I'm certainly no fan of his. It's one reason I wouldn't go and work at the festival he held in Wilmington, Ohio, though I know the money went to support the town.

(And, honestly, I believe we all have some evil within us.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree, just as I agree that we all (even someone like Breivik) have some good in us. It is a matter of degree. As much as I dislike Beck, he is nowhere near Breivik on the evil spectrum, in my opinion.

[eborr]

Issue with Beck is that somebody thinks he is important and gives him publicity, perhaps he is not as important as he once was, because in order to get publiity he has to make even more extreme statements. Best think with Beck is to ignore him, if he is ignored enough he will go away.

[Griffon64]

There are plenty of ... willfully ignorant? ... people who adore him and listen to his drivel. He'll be around for a while yet. There are plenty of usually conservative, often older, folks who seem to love nothing more than to be terrorized into believing that their comfortable lives are threatened and that "they" are going to destroy everything "good" about everything. Those people seem to lend their ears to Glenn Beck readily in order to get their daily thrills.

Our clock radio is set to "Glenn Beck" in the mornings because there's nothing you want more than to make it stop when it hits your ears, so it is a very effective wake-up alarm.

All the articles I personally read about Glenn Beck's stupid statement were very quick to point out that he, himself, have organized or sponsored youth camps with the same general foundation as the one he shot down. I suppose his followers never get to the part where his doublespeak is pointed out, since they probably overwhelmingly get their propaganda ( 'scuse me, "news" ) from Fox and other like-minded sites. And if they do, it probably becomes a fact that they fondly ignore, like other inconvenient facts.

But there I go again, paying a sliver of attention to Glenn Beck. I think he gets a kick out of moderate and liberal news sources squawking about what he says, and it probably drives new listeners to him, as well.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

All the articles I personally read about Glenn Beck's stupid statement were very quick to point out that he, himself, have organized or sponsored youth camps with the same general foundation as the one he shot down.

Not intentional, I am certain, but my jaw dropped when I read this description...

As for Glenn Beck, who he? Okay, I know he's a lachrymose Fox "talking head", but isn't it somewhat illustrative of a sorry state of affairs that this pustule commands such attention? The joys of Infotainment!

As for Anders Breivik, and his purported madness, I find it difficult to subscribe to the simplistic equation that an action necessitates "insanity". As for the semantic gymnastics required to dispose of the label insane in favour of crazy, or some such other, it has to be noted that there was nothing crazed about his murderous implementation. It was cold and ruthlessly planned. "Crazy" is just too convenient...

[eborr]

Hi Griff, long time since pretoria,

your statement is so true, and why I despair for democracy

[Griffon64]

All the articles I personally read about Glenn Beck's stupid statement were very quick to point out that he, himself, have organized or sponsored youth camps with the same general foundation as the one he shot down.

Not intentional, I am certain, but my jaw dropped when I read this description...

Of course it wasn't intentional. I typically don't pay any attention to my usage of figures of speech, but I will apologize once-off for any distress unintentionally caused.

Glenn Beck isn't on Fox anymore. Contrary to popular belief, America isn't solely populated by Glenn Beck adoring people - his show purportedly got pulled because of pushback from advertisers, who in turn felt pressure from the "silent majority" of sane people who got fed up with Glenn Beck. No, in America the almighty dollar still trumps the conservative indoctrination!

As for Glenn Beck, who he? Okay, I know he's a lachrymose Fox "talking head", but isn't it somewhat illustrative of a sorry state of affairs that this pustule commands such attention? The joys of Infotainment!

Indeed. Glenn Beck is infotainment for many of those who squawk indignantly about what he says, because it in turn feeds into their beliefs that a) all conservatives listen to and believe Glenn Beck and b) therefore all conservatives are uneducated and/or dumb and c) they are going to take over and ruin America. The same kind of thrills the Glenn Beck crowd seeks out. He's dead serious stuff for others ( alas ).



What Anders Breivik did seems "crazy" to people who would not contemplate doing such a thing themselves, but I would ( tentatively, given that I don't read every bit of news coverage about this event ) agree that it does not mean that he is crazy. I think he's coldly sane. Seems like he knew what he wanted and planned the lengths to go to to get it. The existence of people like that out there makes me shudder. Planes into buildings*, firearms in the hands of white supremacists ... frightening. Not crazy, but frightening.

Hi Griff, long time since pretoria,

your statement is so true, and why I despair for democracy

Gosh, haven't it been a long time!

Every time I despair for democracy I'm reminded that other forms of government, in my observation, is worse.

Which is why, instead, I try to agitate for more education, because I suspect that in a democracy where education isn't valued democracy, you may end up with all the ( dangerously ignorant ) fools on the same side and you don't want them to outnumber the rest. Of course, mentioning education gets me started on that willful ignorance thing again.




*Disclaimer: events listed chronologically and in the later case, referring to this event in particular. There's been others events of that kind predating 9/11 and I am aware of that.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I think this is a fascinating example of how a tragedy can be spun to legitimise an ideology, in this case "ethnic purity"

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials ... ?id=230788

Undoubtedly, there will be those – particularly on the Left – who will extrapolate out from Breivik’s horrific act that the real danger facing contemporary Europe is rightwing extremism and that criticism of multiculturalism is nothing more than so much Islamophobia.

While it is still too early to determine definitively Breivik’s precise motives, it could very well be that the attack was more pernicious – and more widespread – than the isolated act of a lunatic. Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere. While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right....

...Europe’s fringe right-wing extremists present a real danger to society. But Oslo’s devastating tragedy should not be allowed to be manipulated by those who would cover up the abject failure of multiculturalism

The Jerusalem Post makes pains not to be an apologist for Breivik's actions, yet the conclusion here is not that those racist, separatist, exclusionist, "rightwing" uniculturalists are at fault, but quite the opposite; apparently, it is the "abject failure of multiculturalism" that is the root of the problem.

And I almost feel embarrassed to say it, but I am not surprised by this spin. Who could be? Any society that is fundamentally monocultural in ideology, and increasingly in practice, will reject multicultural imperatives, and find itself skirting with apologies for mass murder.

This should be deeply troubling.

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm impressed. Only three pages to get Israel-bashing into a thread on an attack against Norwegians by a far-right Norwegian extremist.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I'm impressed. Only three pages to get Israel-bashing into a thread on an attack against Norwegians by a far-right Norwegian extremist.

Israel bashing? I think your emphasis may be a manouvre to get this thread locked.

I notice you make no comment on this attack, in a mainstream media outlet, on multiculturalism.

This article was posted on 25 July. It has hardly been rushed into comment. Yet it is there, and it does betray a set attitude; cultural pluralism is "unwelcome". And it does use Breivik's massacre as an excuse to attack multiculturalism, which is exactly the manifesto of the perpetrator of this massacre. Ordinarily, one would expect condemnation of the ideology underpinning a massacre. But not here. Why?

You support this, L_M?

[Túrin Turambar]

The comment is nothing unusual – many right-wing commentators around the world have said the same thing. Nor is it particularly unusual to look for a ‘root cause’ for terrorist attacks beyond the simple ideology of the attacker. Take the many discussions of 9/11 and other Islamist attacks that link them to American and Israeli foreign policy. Suggesting that Breivik’s actions are the result of a failure of multiculturalism is not a position I would support but it is hardly an unusual or surprising one for commentators to take. And general critiques of multiculturalism are hardly shocking either – both David Cameron and Angela Merkel have raised concerns about it in recent years.

[vison]

I'm impressed. Only three pages to get Israel-bashing into a thread on an attack against Norwegians by a far-right Norwegian extremist.

I agree, Lord_M.

And, furthermore, I don't see anything inherently wicked or sinful in disliking "cultural pluralism". It's only wrong if you're a white westerner, isn't that what it comes down to?

Why should Norway, which has been populated only by white, northern Europeans for centuries, be expected to instantly adapt to people so different from them as to be almost from another planet? Why is it wrong or shocking that there is discomfort or outright dislike?

We are constantly barraged with shouting about the horrors of "cultural imperialism". Well, it goes both ways. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or ought to be.

Breivik's "underpinning ideology" was not dislike or discomfort, but the kind of mad hatred only a severely crazy person could come up with. It's twisting reality pretty severely to claim that a perfectly natural reaction to a fairly massive change in your culture is somehow to blame.

People can learn to get along. But it is naive in the extreme to think it's simple, or that deep-rooted old populations are going to adjust quickly or easily to change. Or, really, why they should.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

The comment is nothing unusual – many right-wing commentators around the world have said the same thing. Nor is it particularly unusual to look for a ‘root cause’ for terrorist attacks beyond the simple ideology of the attacker. Take the many discussions of 9/11 and other Islamist attacks that link them to American and Israeli foreign policy. Suggesting that Breivik’s actions are the result of a failure of multiculturalism is not a position I would support but it is hardly an unusual or surprising one for commentators to take. And general critiques of multiculturalism are hardly shocking either – both David Cameron and Angela Merkel have raised concerns about it in recent years.

Yet the Jerusalem Post itself found its presentation worthy of a fulsome apology. It would seem that, unlike yourself, L_M, they found the tone of their presentation reprehensible.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials ... ?id=232535

The editorial squarely condemned the attack, saying that “as Israelis, a people that is sadly all too familiar with the horrors of indiscriminate, murderous terrorism, our hearts go out with empathy to the Norwegian people.”

However, it also, inappropriately, raised issues that were not directly pertinent, such as the dangers of multiculturalism, European immigration policies and even the Oslo peace process.

“Your editorial, while insistently condemning the violence in Norway, shockingly and shamelessly attempts to offer justification for his extremist violent act of terror,” wrote Esam Omeish in one of many letters to the editor, several of which were published in the paper.

The apology was posted on 4th August, ten days after the original piece, and would appear to be in response to the outrage the original article engendered. But the fact remains that the Jerusalem Post, a respected representative of mainstream Israeli commentary was comfortable presenting such a prejudicial position. Breivik was being used, and this has been recognised. Hence the apology.

No matter how much it is spun, the immediate response to Breivik was one of tacitly supporting uniculturalism. Only after ten days has this been, loosely, "repudiated". Why?

PS

I'm impressed. Only three pages to get Israel-bashing into a thread on an attack against Norwegians by a far-right Norwegian extremist.

I agree, Lord_M.

And yet the Jerusalem Post would, as I have shown, portray it slightly differently. They seem to have recognised the objectionable nature of the original article. Or perhaps there is another explanation?

[Holbytla]

Yes there is another explanation.
Whatever perspective you choose to view the world from will color your view.
There is no getting around that no matter which side of the spectrum you are on.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Yes there is another explanation.
Whatever perspective you choose to view the world from will color your view.
There is no getting around that no matter which side of the spectrum you are on.

Could you explain this, Holbytla? I was pondering on what other explanation there would be for the Jerusalem Post to, in effect, write a retraction, if the original article had not been "objectionable" (there were many objections).

How does personal worldview explain the actions of the Jerusalem Post?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

And, furthermore, I don't see anything inherently wicked or sinful in disliking "cultural pluralism". It's only wrong if you're a white westerner, isn't that what it comes down to?

Why should Norway, which has been populated only by white, northern Europeans for centuries, be expected to instantly adapt to people so different from them as to be almost from another planet? Why is it wrong or shocking that there is discomfort or outright dislike?

We are constantly barraged with shouting about the horrors of "cultural imperialism". Well, it goes both ways. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or ought to be.

Breivik's "underpinning ideology" was not dislike or discomfort, but the kind of mad hatred only a severely crazy person could come up with. It's twisting reality pretty severely to claim that a perfectly natural reaction to a fairly massive change in your culture is somehow to blame.

People can learn to get along. But it is naive in the extreme to think it's simple, or that deep-rooted old populations are going to adjust quickly or easily to change. Or, really, why they should.

I think this deserves a more detailed response. Firstly, the special pleading of implicit victimhood for white westerners is perverse, and wrapped in a straw man to boot. Personally, I would find any "racial" exclusivity pretty abhorrent, whether it would be Sinhalese against Tamils, Japanese against Koreans, or Norwegians against Muslims. It just so happens that this particular event was the last in the list... and then it was used in a Jerusalem Post editorial in a quite scurrilous fashion. As Slavoj Žižek in this Guardian article points out, there was a specific agenda being pushed, to justify uniculturalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... im-fortuyn

A key is provided by the reactions of the European right to Breivik's attack: its mantra was that in condemning his murderous act, we should not forget that he addressed "legitimate concerns about genuine problems" – mainstream politics is failing to address the corrosion of Europe by Islamicisation and multiculturalism, or, to quote the Jerusalem Post, we should use the Oslo tragedy "as an opportunity to seriously re-evaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere". The newspaper has since apologised for this editorial. (Incidentally, we are yet to hear a similar interpretation of the Palestinian acts of terror, something like "these acts of terror should serve as an opportunity to re-evaluate Israeli politics".)

A reference to Israel is, of course, implicit in this evaluation: a "multicultural" Israel has no chance to survive; apartheid is the only realistic option. The price for this properly perverse Zionist-rightist pact is that, in order to justify the claim to Palestine, one has to acknowledge retroactively the line of argumentation which was previously, in earlier European history, used against the Jews: the implicit deal is "we are ready to acknowledge your intolerance towards other cultures in your midst if you acknowledge our right not to tolerate Palestinians in our midst".

The original Jerusalem Post editorial used Breivik's murders to attack multiculturalism, because that serves to justify Israel's "apartheid" policies. It really is perverse to find such strange bedfellows as the neo-nazi Breivik and the Jerusalem Post, yet it at least serves to illustrate the opportunistic nature of ideological imperatives.

Even the most heinous crimes can be spun and semi-justified. As vison wrote

It's twisting reality pretty severely to claim that a perfectly natural reaction to a fairly massive change in your culture is somehow to blame.

People can learn to get along. But it is naive in the extreme to think it's simple, or that deep-rooted old populations are going to adjust quickly or easily to change.

I find it difficult to see any of these reactions as "perfectly natural".

[Pearly Di]

I don't often find myself on the same page as Ghân - - but on this occasion I do.

And I'm a big supporter of Israel.

But that editorial from the Jerusalem Post was just ... icky.

I've read some pretty nauseating commentary on the massacre, from the likes of Beck, etc. The JP editorial had the same sanctimonius tone: yes, it was dreadful, BUT.

Beware that odious little 'but' ...

[nerdanel]

And, furthermore, I don't see anything inherently wicked or sinful in disliking "cultural pluralism". It's only wrong if you're a white westerner, isn't that what it comes down to?

No. It's wrong no matter who does it. The truth is that many of the loudest and most powerful people who have railed against "cultural pluralism" in recent years have been white westerners. Moreover, since most of us (posting at HoF) live in countries with white western majorities, it is the prejudice of the white westerners who dislike "cultural pluralism" (i.e., the rest of us being present and in any way different from the white majority) with which we must contend.

Why should Norway, which has been populated only by white, northern Europeans for centuries, be expected to instantly adapt to people so different from them as to be almost from another planet? Why is it wrong or shocking that there is discomfort or outright dislike?

It IS wrong to "outright dislike" people from a different cultural heritage even if - shock, horror! - you have to share the same country with them. There seems to be this misconception among the offended white westerners in question that the countries in question are "theirs" and that the rest of us are here solely by their grace and thanks to their beneficent generosity. (Sidebar: This becomes particularly comical when the white westerners and the alien outsiders who cause them so much discomfort have both been present in the country in question from the same age: from birth/young childhood.)

People can learn to get along. But it is naive in the extreme to think it's simple, or that deep-rooted old populations are going to adjust quickly or easily to change. Or, really, why they should.

The argument that they (the deep-rooted old populations) should not have to adjust to change (that their societies are no longer homogeneous) is, essentially, an argument that the presence of the non-whites/recent immigrants, whose heritage draws from multiple cultures, is something other than legitimate. And I reject that, vehemently, with every fiber of my child-of-Eastern-immigrants being.

[Hachimitsu]

There seems to be this misconception among the offended white westerners in question that the countries in question are "theirs" and that the rest of us are here solely by their grace and thanks to their beneficent generosity. (Sidebar: This becomes particularly comical when the white westerners and the alien outsiders who cause them so much discomfort have both been present in the country in question from the same age: from birth/young childhood.)

I just wanted to point out that I have experienced this sort of sentiment from older white immigrants, who most certainly were not born in Canada and did not arrive here at a young age. (I was born here, but I do not count as a Canadian according to them. They literally told me to my face I wasn't Canadian.) Mind you I have mainly noticed this sentiment among lower middle class and poor white people.

I find the Canadian application of the sentiment that this country "belongs" to white majority considering it was basically stolen from First Nations peoples quite strange. I see that sort of nativistic entitlement happen in the US too. I sort of do not understand where that sentiment comes from in North America. (Especially since Chinese and Black people were in theses countries early on and contributed just as much.)

I do sort of understand it in European countries. Although no country has ever been an island of purity (no matter how much the country wants to pretend it is, or has been).