should not be blamed on others, who didn't commit them, merely because he mouthed RW views like theirs. It's like blaming all Muslims or Arabs for 9/11. It's not true. It's not fair. And that, in itself, is a dangerous way of thinking. Indeed, 9/11 led to war on tens of thousands of innocent Muslims and Arabs who had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
If Charles Whitman--disgruntled ex-Marine who had fought in Vietnam--had issued an anti-war statement, before taking weapons up to the Texas Tower at Austin U., and opening fire at random on students around the campus, would it have been fair to blame that insane slaughter on the anti-war movement?
No.
See my comments here:
(#132)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4931714#4933112and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1560081But I didn't really "dismiss" Breivik. I just felt that, despite his political statements prior to his murders, his systematic extermination of 80 some youngsters--white Norwegian youngsters, at that--makes no sense whatsoever, and passed over into the realm of the psychotic (full break with reality).
I've learned some things since then that give me pause about my analysis. One is that he published a manifesto, prior to this horrendous murder binge, stating his intention to cause a nazi-like uprising in Europe. (He claims others are with him, but that has not been verified.) Another is that there is now a report of a second shooter.
However, even if this was a cabal, we need to be careful about using this horror to try to shut other people up, who would never in the wildest dreams slaughter 80 children in cold-blood, and who would condemn it utterly. I know some "Christian conservatives" and such an implication is very, very wrong. I may disagree with virtually everything they believe and aver, in religion and politics, but to blame them for Breivik's actions would be as nuts and as anti-progressive as blaming all Muslims for 9/11.
Such blaming of a class of people--all who hold given views, or all of the same race or from the same region--can also blind us to what is really going on. (It certainly did in the case of 9/11.) It is axiomatic of the 'divide and conquer' tactics of the rich to demonize the latest immigrant group and stir up the resentment of other poor workers, in order
fool those poor workers about what is really going on and to get support for the super-rich and their monstrous schemes to rob everybody. We need to avoid this kind of scapegoating, especially of a class of people whose views we don't like, and avoid blinding ourselves to deeper truths. It's fair to argue views, to investigate funding (i.e., the Koch bros), and to discredit where discredit is deserved, but throwing Breivik at somebody, who had nothing to do with Breivik, and isn't a murderer, is a corrosive and anti-democratic thing to do.
Consider this for instance, as to Breivik: Whose interests are really being served by this horror in Norway? It's going to be a dark stain on the rightwing, politically--it doesn't help them at all. But if I were a far rightwing fascist billionaire, and wanted to "turn" Norway, I wouldn't start with politics. Norwegians are the most progressive people on the planet. I would start with FEAR--meanwhile making lots and lots of money on security systems, surveillance, arms dealing, police and military contracts, and so on--all at the expense of social programs. The "Christian conservative" self-labeling by Breivik may be a smokescreen. It may wrongly point to "Christian conservatives" with generalized blame, while devious parties are raking in the kroners, behind the scenes, and plotting the future looting and dismantling of Norway's economy, for which they will use carefully chosen, bought and paid for "Christian conservative" leaders, who dupe their own constituents about their purposes.
So, if that is the case, we shouldn't waste our time shouting down ordinary people for expressing their views, and trying to guilt-trip them with Breivik. We should be "following the money," as Deep Throat advised.
An event like this can also "divide and conquer" people who might otherwise find common interest. For instance, preserving existing cultures has its good sides and its bad sides. The Indigenous here and in Latin America want to preserve their cultures. Is that bad? Most of us would say no. So why is it bad, in principle, for much smaller countries or smaller populations than the U.S.--say, France or Norway? The U.S. is an immigrant country. That IS our culture--or a very big part of it. France and Norway are NOT immigrant countries. They
have immigrants (France more than Norway) but it is not a traditional purpose of their country to create a "melting pot." And the U.S. is so big, it can absorb a lot of new peoples and influences. Every country controls its immigration and must establish quotas and criteria for who is admitted. Who makes those decisions and are they the best decisions for the existing population and its culture? Maybe 20% Muslim immigration is too high for Norway. That is an arguable point without it having any racist component. And it is WRONG to slam everybody who wants to reduce it as racist.
I have NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for those who want to limit Latin American immigration to the U.S., because a good third of this country once belonged to Mexico, and ALL of it belonged to its Indigenous tribes, before that, in the not so distant past. This is a quite different situation than France or Norway or other comparatively small countries which have been used to a homogenous culture, with very deep roots and a common language. Their cultures go back thousands of years. France, as a former colonial ruler, is obliged to allow immigration and give citizenship to people from their former colonies--just as England is. That is only fair. But there ARE deeper issues in these countries than we face here--and it is not all racism. People have a right to CONSERVATION of their culture and it is a reasonable opinion that ancient cultures are imperiled in western Europe, by mass internal and in-coming migrations. This can be very unsettling and disrupting in largely homogenous cultures. It's hard enough for some people to see their neighborhood change race, or change religion, or change national origin, in a vast, multi-cultural country like ours. Imagine how hard it must be for people who are not used to it, to see their
country (the same size as some our states) go 20%, 30%, 40% Muslim--a far different and alien culture and religion, on women's rights and in any many other respects. (Parts of Europe also experienced Islamic conquest--long ago, to be sure, but memories are much longer in Europe.)
To condemn anyone and everyone virtually as a mass murderer, due to this horror in Norway, because they have such concerns is wrong--and it prevents us from peacefully discussing and resolving our different opinions.
That is one danger of viewing this horror as a rightwing political event rather than a psychotic outbreak by one or a few people. That one person or a few people are therefore setting the agenda. You are letting them tell you what this event means.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the views of people who could inflict such carnage on children. But getting up a sort of "jihad" against people with rightwing views because of what Breivik or a Breivik cabal did, serves their apparent purposes of violence and division.
I hope I am not blinding myself to some horrible new nazi peril, as you warn. But I do tend to think that what Breivik did will do nothing but discredit his views and strengthen the forces of tolerance and progress.
As to that--and the "what's really going on question"--I notice that he uses "marxist" as a label for the tolerant Left. This may be a clue to what's behind this horror, if anything is behind it besides Breivik himself. I am reminded of the coup general in Honduras who said that their coup was intended to "prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States." "Communist' or "Marxist" is a corpo-fascist buzz word for...oh, universal free medical care, or free public education through college, or decent wages, or local resources like oil being used to benefit the people who live there. It is equivalent to social justice and democracy, in such minds. They oppose social justice and democracy and call it "communism." Wherever they picked up such a belief and usage, it CLEARLY serves corpo-fascist INTERESTS--identifiable ones, in the case of Honduras. Did the Honduran general get it from Jim DeMint? From the U.S. war profiteers building the new U.S. military bases in Honduras? From the U.S. retailers running sweatshops in Honduras? From John McCain who has telecommunications interests in Honduras? At a cocktail party with Miami mafia? At the U.S. State Department?
Breivik could have picked it up from his handlers (if he had them). He could also have lighted upon it himself--from relatively innocent contacts or reading. But it struck me--in writings of his that have been quoted. (I haven't read his manifesto yet--and I haven't decided that I will. Why should I fill my mind with the ideas of a man who slaughtered 80 children? I don't think I can stomach it. I have a personal experience of this kind of slaughter in my background and that colors how I view Breivik. I've never read the writings of the madman who killed a dear friend of mine, in a mass slaughter. Why should I? But maybe I should--lo these 45 years. It's possible that that madman--Charles Whitman--suffered a psychotic break as the result of government experiments, and maybe I should try to figure out if that's what happened.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
