Utøya gunman boasted of links to UK far right

[malaise]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/norway-attacks-utoya-gunman
<snip>

Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of the murder of at least 92 Norwegians in a bomb and gun massacre, boasted online about his discussions with the far-right English Defence League and other anti-Islamic European organisations.

The disclosure of Breivik's claimed links with far-right organisations came as details continued to emerge about the rightwing Christian fundamentalist and Freemason behind Norway's worst postwar act of violence.

Breivik had talked admiringly online about conversations he had had with unnamed English Defence League members and the organisation Stop the Islamification of Europe (SIOE) over the success of provocative street actions leading to violence.

"I have on some occasions had discussions with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use certain strategies," he wrote two years ago. "The tactics of the EDL are now to 'lure' an overreaction from the Jihad Youth/Extreme-Marxists, something they have succeeded in doing several times already."

Contacted by email, the EDL had not answered.

add link

[Peace Patriot]

1. Please see my views on this...

Comment #132 (in reply to snagglepuss).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4931714#4933112

We need to be very careful about blaming the murders of 80 children on others, on a class of people, on their political views--no matter how loathsome or dangerous we consider their views.

THEY did NOT murder 80 children!

Of course we will--and we need to--find out as much as we can about Anders Behring Breivik. He seems to have acted alone. There is no evidence at all, thus far, that anyone else was involved, in any way. But his crime is so horrible that investigators and the rest of us need to be sure.

What I want to stress is that ideas did not kill these children. HE killed these children--acting alone, so far as we know. And no matter what ideas may have been rattling around in his head, from whatever source, OTHER proponents of those ideas did NOT kill these children.

We should not be smug that he described himself as a "Christian conservative" and promote the notion that ALL "Christian conservatives" are somehow responsible for killing 80 children--or even that all white racists are responsible, or all people with fascist political views. It is simply not fair.

An an example I used in that comment is Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper (1966) who shot and killed a very dear friend of mine, amidst a random mass killing. If Whitman, a former U.S. Marine who had been to Vietnam, had made an anti-war statement (very possible in his case, though he didn't make any political statements), but if he had, would it have been fair to blame the anti-war movement for that horrible killing spree?

No. It would not have been fair. Charles Whitman suffered a psychotic break. His political views were completely irrelevant. And I think that is the case with Breivik--no matter who he wrote to, or what he read, or what his alleged views were. I repeat, he murdered 80 children in cold blood. The man was not sane.

[marions ghost]

2. It's fair to link this guy to his stated beliefs and alliances

...VERY fair. He IS a right wing terrorist, is he not?

How else do people understand the extremes to which extremist groups can go? I would compare Breivik to McVeigh or to Islamic fundamentalists instead of American anti-war groups (!)--who were waging a battle of minds against an unjust war--in the name of peace. It can't be directly equated. Whew--I HOPE not!

This guy has a clear agenda, no matter how deranged he is. If we didn't hear his ideas and rhetoric spewing from our own media nonstop it might be a little easier to write him off as an unaffiliated nutjob like the Va Tech shooter or the Tower guy. But there's an undeniable connection.

It's important that people see that connection, esp right wingers who might be questioning their beliefs. If this guy acted alone, he was a genius. At the very least he got his validation from the right wing groups he was in touch with and following. They gave him the strength to do it. Just like Jared Loughner did. This is acting under the influence, if not in actual complicity.

Ideas CAN kill. Indirectly, but they do.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Please tell me what the political "message" was. The man murdered 80 children!

Personally stalking them, one after another. Not from a distance. Close up. Not with an "impersonal" bomb. Not from a tower. Not a brief scattershot in a shopping mall or theatre--but out in the "wild," a vacation island, where the teenagers were camping. He hunted them down in a cold-blooded rage over at least a two hour period, and when some tried to escape by jumping into the water and swimming away from the island, he aimed, pulled the trigger and murdered them as well.

Do you know the ancient Nordic (Old English/Danish) tale "Beowulf"*? Breivik was like the monster Grendel--a pitiless, alien, blood-thirsty destroyer of human beings. What was Grendel's political message? It is ludicrous to posit one. As the creation of a human storyteller, Grendel is a depiction of human psychosis--a 'human" (conscious creature) suffering from a complete break from reality. The only even hint at a motive is that Grendel is an "outcast." Large, ugly, vile and violent; lives in a cave; and is annoyed by the singing of the local king's men in their mead hall. Grendel attacks "civilization" for no good reason. He is not after food, treasure, land, political conquest, women or any other "prize." He has no apparent reason for revenge. (No history in the tale of the warriors having harmed him.) His own inner pain and rage (unspecified in the tale) drives him simply to KILL many people, in sustained attacks by night. He is the "other" of the human soul--the dark, anti-life alien who cannot be comforted or ameliorated in any way, because he wants nothing. He seeks annihilation.

The 80 children whom Breivik murdered were not Muslims, not Jews, not Africans, not immigrants. They were white Norwegian children, age range 16. So it was not a racist rage--which might be considered a "message" (a la Hitler). It was more a self-annihilation. What is the "message"?

Yes, the children were gathered at a Liberal party summer camp--an institution designed to foster political leadership--and, yes, Breivik first bombed government buildings in Oslo, then went to the summer camp (according to what is currently known from news reports). But I think these two facts--and his prior political statements--pale before what occurred at the camp. They recede into insignificance. I repeat: He murdered 80 children! Unless he was "programmed" by some far rightwing cabal, this is the outstanding, front and center, overwhelming fact of his state of mind: insane. I don't care what he said to anybody or anybody said to him, prior to this incomprehensibly atrocious act--stalking down and murdering 80 children--or what he read, or how he described himself ("Christian conservative"). Indeed, this Grendel-like massacre may indicate alienation from those whom he may have considered his racist, or nationalist or political brethren, i.e., that he felt powerless in relationship to them. Rejected. Isolated. Not accepted as a friend or leader.

It is the hugeness and incomprehensibility of his actions, in murdering 80 children of his own race and country--not in one big blast, but in a methodical hunt, apparently with no hesitations, no self-doubt, no fatigue and no end--he was going to exterminate every last one of them--that puts him into the category of complete psychotic break. He did not know what he was doing. His "purpose" was annihilation--and that includes self-annihilation. And if you are going to try to extract a political "message" from this, it would be: the far rightwing committing suicide!

Because of the far rightwing political views that he expressed, prior to this psychotic break, we tend to extrapolate from what we know of the potential ultimate ends of such views--the Nazi death camps, or South American fascists throwing leftists out of airplanes. It's an understandable thought. But was Breivik "killing all the liberals" by the murder of 80 children at a Liberal political training camp? The political aspect of the camp may have prompted him to go there. But I really, really, REALLY don't think that what he did there was political, in any sense. His political thoughts were like the Furies, besieging him in his downward plunge into psychosis. They were not the "cause" of the psychosis. And he could just as well have been besieged by thoughts of the novel "Catcher in the Rye" or anything else. His political views were just the accidental props in the terrible drama of his descent into madness.

My analysis--and anybody's, at this point--is preliminary, of course. Though the basic facts and circumstances became clear very quickly and seem solid, it's still early to come to any firm conclusions. If this was a conspiracy or cabal of some kind, it could and would be well hidden. We can't rule out the possibility of a "programmed killer" but there is no hint of it yet and we may never know. If that is what happened, there could be political or profit motives. This horror certainly does not enhance the political cache of the far rightwing--it does just the opposite. But it DOES potentially enhance the profits of security firms and other kinds of war profiteers. And it could serve the purposes of anyone who desires a fearful society, for profit or political power. Norway is an open society, which has been virtually untouched by the "security state" paranoia, loss of freedom and loss of civil rights that have plagued the rest of us. Whether anyone would slaughter 80 children to reverse that openness is a question, but if someone did "program" this killer, perhaps they couldn't control him and he acted in an unpredictable way. It's notable that he bombed the government buildings during a holiday period, and that no political leader, such as the PM, was hit. (He was due at the camp the next day.) Was the timing off? Did something go awry?

But this really IS pure speculation. The facts seem to genuinely point to a lone killer. And I don't think that what that lone killer did can be ascribed to a political viewpoint. I think we should be careful about making assumptions like that, because the implication is that all people who would call themselves "Christian conservatives" would want to see 80 children murdered as some sort of "statement" or "message." Their views may be loathsome, stupid and dangerous, and they may get hysterical in their expressions--because, no matter what the corporate media says, their views are a distinct minority, thus they try to impose them on others by exaggeration (their big trumpet in the media is not legitimate, and they know it)--and they may wish to oppress others, repress others and wage war. But hunting down and shooting to death 80 white Norwegian children (or, really, any such group)? They did not do it, and I don't believe that it was any kind of consequence of their expressed views, not even indirectly. The evidence overwhelmingly points to an individual psychosis, for which anything could have been the trigger.

It's not that people shouldn't think about inflammatory speech, or shouldn't look askance at far rightwing and racist views. Of course they should. But if we draw a line of guilt from Breivik to people whose views we despise and oppose, we come perilously close to repression ourselves. I am not a supporter of "hate speech" laws. I think they are a "liberal" aspect of Patriot Act repression. And I do NOT think that speech EVER "causes" action. We should resist impulses to curtail speech that we don't like or that WE deem dangerous. It is actions that need to be controlled, in a civilized society, not speech. I don't mean to be unreasonable about this. I know that if someone, say, issues a death threat, they need to be stopped from carrying it out. And if that means we have to be a bit pre-emptive and repressive as to spoken words, so be it. But the impulse to suppress general statements of hatred, however ugly those may be, is very dangerous, in itself, to democracy. It's better to have things out in the open, than to have insidious hatreds fermenting under the surface of society. I think that the great, inclusive, fair-minded, majority progressive view will win out, in an open society. And when you start repressing this minority or that minority--no matter how loathsome you think their views are--it is a very bad sign.

I hope that this event does not silence anyone. Silence is bad--even if what the far rightwing wants to do is silence you. We must not let them silence us. And I mean, by that, some very specific things: We need to bust corporate 'news' monopolies, for instance, which clearly are promoting extremist and rightwing minority views, and are suppressing majority progressive view. And we need to get rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, which have put some serious fascists in power, who are saying and doing things that do NOT represent the majority. We need to prevent the majority from being silenced --but we must not yield to the impulse to silence those who wish to silence us. (Corporations? They can all be busted with no damage to free speech. It will enhance free speech. I mean individuals.)

Norway's PM said, "Our answer to terrorism will be more democracy." That's my view. Not repression. Not unfair blaming. Not trying to tag somebody else's view as "causing" the insane murder of 80 children. More democracy.


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


*(Beowulf begins with the story of King Hroðgar, who built the great hall Heorot for his people. In it he, his wife Wealhþeow, and his warriors spend their time singing and celebrating, until Grendel, an outcast from society who is angered by the singing, attacks the hall and kills and devours many of Hroðgar's warriors while they sleep. But Grendel dares not touch the throne of Hroðgar, because it is described as protected by a powerful god. Hroðgar and his people, helpless against Grendel's attacks, abandon Heorot.

(Beowulf, a young warrior from Geatland, hears of Hroðgar's troubles and with his king's permission leaves his homeland to help Hroðgar.

(Beowulf and his men spend the night in Heorot. After they fall asleep, Grendel enters the hall and attacks, devouring one of Beowulf's men. Beowulf, who bears no weapon as this would be an unfair advantage over the unarmed beast, has been feigning sleep and leaps up to clench Grendel's hand. The two battle until it seems as though the hall might collapse. Beowulf's retainers draw their swords and rush to his aid, but their blades can not pierce Grendel's skin as he is immune to human weapons. Finally, Beowulf tears Grendel's arm from his body at the shoulder and Grendel runs to his home in the marshes to die.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf

(Note the themes of isolation, senseless rage and vulnerability. This is no normal combat. This is the "unarmed beast" of the inner human soul--unconscious, with no guile, without weapons, in a senseless, murderous rage--whom the smart warrior outwits. The smart warrior, Beowulf, is human consciousness--intelligence, alertness, cleverness, ability to observe and learn and a sense of fair play. Like Grendel, Breivik lacked all these qualities. Though in our reality he was armed, in his "reality," he was the "unarmed beast." HE was the vulnerable one. He was not capable of a sense of fair play. And he did not see his methodical slaughter of 80 children as murder but rather as preservation of his psyche, his inner self, which had fractured from his conscious self--the psychotic break. To attribute the actions of this broken psyche to a political viewpoint makes no sense. On the island, at least, he was not capable of a political viewpoint. And unless he was "programmed" by some cabal--using drugs and hypnosis or whatever--we really must not try to blame other people, who are innocent of these murders, because they advocate loathesome political views similar to ones that Breivik expressed in his downward spiral into psychosis. He may have been barely rational when he placed the bombs in the government buildings, with some dim notion of a political "message"--but he was fast sinking into Hell, and he was NOT rational by the time he reached the island. Think about this: Could anyone have done more harm to the political status of the far right? His murder of the 80 children was NOT a political act. It was the emergence of that ancient "unarmed beast" utterly overwhelming his mind and his ability to have a motive of any kind. Whatever human characteristics he may have had--wit, pity, courage, devotion to a cause, joy, fellow feeling, political opinions--were gone.)

[Peace Patriot]

4. I've just learned some things at another thread that give me pause about my analysis.

Here's the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4932503

There may have been a second shooter.

Breivik has said that his actions were "horrible but necessary."

People fear that he intends to be a leader of a new nazi movement in Europe--that's why his statements and "manifestos."

Points to political motive--sociopathic, but maybe not psychotic (out of touch with reality; broken mind; not responsible).

A 10 year old on the island, whose father had just been shot, convinced the shooter not to shoot him. Said, "I'm only ten, too young to die and you just killed my father." Shooter refrained from shooting him. I presume this was Breivik and it indicates intentionality--selectivity.

Well, if there were others involved, or others waiting in the wings for Breivik's "big splash," or Breivik's intention was to become the new Hitler, we will soon know.

I still maintain that it is wrong to blame others for this horror, just because they have similar rightwing views. It's like blaming all Arabs or all Islamists for 9/11. It's not true. It's not fair. And that kind of blaming of a "class of people" is what we, as progressives, are against, is it not?