Norway

Condolences to the victims from my side too.

The sad thing about this is that a massacre by a Christian extremist makes him a madman, but a massacre by a Muslim makes him a terrorist.

And the funny thing about this is that I've seen more posts complaining about there being more posts about Amy Winehouse than Oslo than I've seen about Oslo.

I would like to share with you a few points I have been researching the past two years, which appear to be confirmed by this horrendous act of mass-murder.

1.   The far-right in Europe currently exists in two entirely separate and different forms, often hostile towards one another.

The first is the traditional nazi-based far-right, like the Front National in France, Vlaams Belang in Belgium and the EDL in Britain. They are out of touch with the 'mainstream' of far-right voters, and are fighting a losing battle. However, those who *do* still subscribe to this ideology are extreme fanatics, and every single one of them is a potential danger to society. On the upside, they make up less than 3% of the population.

The second kind is, in my view, more dangerous at the moment. This new far-right is not nazi-oriented, in that they are not race thinkers. However, many, like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, *are* national-socialists in the *literal* sense of the word. They often have strong ties to orthodox Christianity, although they are hostile towards those Christian groups that subscribe to the so-called "social gospel". All their hate is channelled towards 'communists' (which they describe so broadly that it also includes liberal democrats and all kinds of non-marxist left-wing groups), which they see as not merely in league with but synonymous to Islamists. The few studies that have been carried out show that, like extreme left-wingers, a disproportionally large number of them are fanatical believers in conspiracy theories, with Masonic conspiracies at the top.

This 'new far right', led by the Dutch and Scandinavian anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim parties, is greeted with a degree of decency by the established right, especially the right wing of the Christian Democrats (as, for instance, in the CDA of the Netherlands and the CDU/CSU in Germany). They usually denounce violence outright, though this is not necessarily true of their supporters. Anti-semitism plays no role of any importance, and a pro-Israeli agenda is no taboo, though it appears that a large number of their supporters view supporting Israel as a "necessary evil" to get to the Muslims.

2.    This second kind of far right attracts many people who would formerly have voted for moderate parties, something that is not true of the first category. Most votes for these parties are cast from regions with very small immigrant populations, suggesting that it is (economic) fear rather than (economic) reality that drives the voters. I am not sure if this also applies to other countries, but the Dutch supporters of the new far right show a striking disregard for facts and statistics: if figures or facts contradict their ideology, they are either said to be forged or are ignored all together.

3.    The new far right is, unlike the nazi-kind, *extremely* hostile towards *all* intellectuals/intellectualism. Formerly, intellectuals who subscribed to far-right views were welcomed by neo-nazis, but the new far right considers all intellectuals as the enemy.

4.    One thing that hasn't changed is that the new far right is decidedly hostile towards democracy and democratic processes. They are, by their nature, authoritarian groups, and subscribe the leadership-principle, meaning that the decisions and motives of the party leader are not to be questioned. So far, this does not seem to have broken down in any of the new far right parties, suggesting that they have capable leaders.

5.    They do not usually resort to violence, and will denounce it in public, but will not do anything to hinder it. Many of the representatives for the Dutch and Danish 'Freedom' parties have been convicted for or at least charged with acts of violence. This does not bother their electorate.

6.    Whereas the traditional far right could never count on more than about 5% of the population to support them, the new far right can count on numbers as high as 25% or even 30%. This means that a legal takeover of power by the far right, such as the NSDAP did in 1933, is a real possibility. Because of the semblance of legality, this is a far more realistic danger than a coup d'êtat.

7.    As was the case in the 1930s, but never after WWII, traditional conservative parties are quite willing to ally themselves with the new far right, in the false believe that the far right can be controlled and used for the conservatives' purposes.

8.   The new far right attempts to (and succeeds in) attract(ing) voters by combining far-right views on crime, immigration, national security and foreign policy with decidedly left-wing economic policies. However, when a choice has to be made between their economic and their social policies, they are quick to surrender the economic points.

All this combined makes me come to the conclusion that, while a resurgence of the far-right is a standard and predictable result of economic downturns and prolonged uncertainty, the danger of non-democratic regimes coming to power in Europe has not been a more realistic danger since the 1940s. The current situation absolutely dwarfs the 1970s resurgence.

The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank.

Incidently, as far as I have been able to uncover, there are only two things all the new far right supporters agree on:

1) All muslims are a threat to Western society
2) The Serbs were the good guys in the Yugoslav civil war.

The second point is especially important, because it implies what they would do if they were ever to be the majority party.

Thomas Quinn, your post was really interesting... I have tried and failed to understand politics and the ideologies of different groups, esp across the Eu, and i just can't get them straight in my head... its hard to sort out the propaganda from the truth, and to tell what is MEANT by half the stuff thats said by/about them. 
Having said that, from what i have read and studied, it does seem like the current political 'middle ground' is fairly far right.  Left seems to be becoming more right wing, apart from the extremist left groups.  I have heard the argument that all parties are moving more to the centre to gain votes, but it does seem like its more of a centre-right then actual centre.  And it is (imo) reflected in the general culture and ideology thats prevalant throughout society.  Frighteningly right-wing attitudes are creeping in more and more regarding issues like  racism, immigration, asylum seekers, medical care, care of the elderly, care of those with disabilities, etc.  I had a teacher in college who on principle won't get health insurance, and people think she's nuts.  Whether attitudes are changing or whether its just that people are expressing them more publicly, i don't know, but it is scary.
For my last social policy exam i had to study the development of social policies in britain/ireland in the last number of years, esp those that came from liberal theory.  And i found it disturbing to even read about extreme neo-liberalism.  And yet, so much of those attitudes are common still. :/

Very fascinating read, TQ.  Bleak .... but fascinating.  Thanks for that.

The world does seem to be moving to the right.  Sure, Obama is in power in the US, but it looks like the Republicans set that one up (i.e. putting the Alaska buffoon and a decrepit old man in there) so that they could blame Obama for the pending default.

Canada is moving right, and so is England ... and much of Europe.  Conservatism in itself isn't a bad thing.  Myself, I'm all in favour of fiscal conservatism, but centrist with most social issues.  But the trend seems to be - when people get scared, they move right, not left.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank.

Really??? On what basis?  I mean whyyy would someone express sympathy for a mass-murderer?  I do feel that people, no matter what, deserve humane treatment, etc, and i often do feel some sympathy for people -- i mean eg, in the Columbine shooting in Utah, the guys who did the killing were just kids themselves, and obviously extremely troubled.  So i have every sympathy for those killed, their families AND for they guys who shot them and their families.  And when Saddam Hussein was found, i felt really sorry for him (and yes i KNOW he was a horrible person -- but he was also a very sad looking old, old man).  But this killing was horrific...
Ok, ALL killing is horrific, but still...

Anyway, i just read that he is being charged with terrorism and crimes against humanity.  So the word 'terrorism' is being used.  I have heard a lot of people differentiating from 'islamic terrorism' though, which seems odd.

Interesting points. I believe that the current far right movements do not have much in common with Nazis - the Nazis had an ideology. It was crazy but they did have a vision about how the society should look like. Today right wing movements arise from fear within the middle class - fear to lose in the global world of capitalism. Imo the mainstream democratic parties have done a lot to fuel this fear since the decline of the communist world: values like worker rights, social justice, social security, equal chances for everybody seem to be disposable gimmicks from the 20th century when capitalism still had to compete with the other big social system. Politicians are quite often regarded as the puppies of the big banks and corporate industry with no concern about the people. I do not think that politicians were ever so despised in Europe as they are today. Many people feel that the European Union is a union of money and industry interests in which the citizens do not have a say anymore because commissions who were never voted into office by the public decide about very important issues throughout the whole continent. There a similar structures elsewhere - for example in the USA where banks are bailed out with tax money but people lose their homes and nobody really understands why.

Right wing organisations draw from this widespread insecurity and fear in the middle class. The issue of integration of immigrants from other cultures - often Muslim cultures -  is used to channel the fear and to simplify the discourse. It is very easy to create a feeling of acceptance and togetherness when you blame it all on "the Muslims". Unfortunately, there has been an actual, real problem with lack of integration which was ignored by mainsteam politics to an extent that you were called a racist even mentioning it.  I believe that Wilders would have never had a chance to become that big if Dutch politics had addressed the issue of integration in a rational and sensible way instead of leaving it to the right wings.

Now the right wing bloggers and parties all distance themselves from the Oslo attacks. Before Oslo "Islam" was the violent ideology threatening the world and now all of a sudden it is a blonde Christian soldier who has released a crude manifest quoting from about every anti-Islamic group there is. It will be very hard to maintain that hate speech and creating an oversimplified "enemy" does not have a potential to create such atrocities and bloodshed. maybe that will be the only good thing that can come out of this tragedy: that there will be a broader understanding that words can kill, after all.

catqueen wrote: "Anyway, i just read that he is being charged with terrorism and crimes against humanity. So the word 'terrorism' is being used. I have heard a lot of people differentiating from 'islamic terrorism' though, which seems odd."


Oh, it absolutely was terrorism. One of the things that infuriates me is that a lot of right-wing commentators have (unsurprisingly) not used the word terrorism, when they would have used it if a Muslim was responsible. There is a lot of Islamophibia on the right.

Anyway, terrorism refers to the killing of civilians for political purposes such as an Islamic group blowing up civilians because of the government's involvement in Iraq, and as such his killing civilians because of the government's policies is no different.

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: so,whats the difference between a christian fundamentalist and an islamic fundamentalist?

According to some of the locals interviewed by our correspondent, it was "a relief that the massacre wasn't caused by islamic fundamentalists"... I know it doesn't really answer your question, but it does tell us that humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders. Even when it isn't the reality.

YourValentine wrote:

Today right wing movements arise from fear within the middle class - fear to lose in the global world of capitalism. Imo the mainstream democratic parties have done a lot to fuel this fear since the decline of the communist world: values like worker rights, social justice, social security, equal chances for everybody seem to be disposable gimmicks from the 20th century when capitalism still had to compete with the other big social system.

=================

Brilliant post, YV .. particularly the above highlighted section.  You've hit it bang on.

Tero! wrote:

humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders.  Even when it isn't the reality.

===============

Exactly.  This is a basic part of the human condition, and has been so for tens of thousands of years.  The fear of the 'other tribe' or the guys who dress differently has always been our race's biggest fear.  This is how governments succeed in keeping people afraid.  Now their hands are tied because a white person did it.

Sir GH wrote: Tero! wrote:

humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders.  Even when it isn't the reality.

===============

Exactly.  This is a basic part of the human condition, and has been so for tens of thousands of years.  The fear of the 'other tribe' or the guys who dress differently has always been our race's biggest fear.  This is how governments succeed in keeping people afraid.  Now their hands are tied because a white person did it.
========
========

I don't know if it's 'just' fear of the other side, though that's definitely a huge part of it. I think there's also a feeling of comfort when it's not 'islamic militants' because the belief is that a christian fundamentalist who carries out a violent act is a lone wolf, while islamic fundamentalists travel in packs. There's greater fear with that, of course, because there is no way to know when or where THEY will strike next, while HE has already created and ended his horror.

Also, there is indignation on the part of the Right. Bill O'Reily's take on this (which I found through a link someone posted in this thread) was incredibly ignorant and frightening - not that I should be surprised by that. He refused to acknowledge this guy as a "christian" because, as he said, a true "christian" would never do what he did. However, as far as I know, O'Reilly has never made that same distinction between muslim extremists and 'true' muslims.

So, christians KNOW christianity and therefore anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of christianity is labeled as non-christian or insane. While anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of islam must, of course, represent all of islam. Which goes back to the original thought that outsiders are seen as the bigger threat even though these assailants will not be officially recognized as 'insiders'.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

So, christians KNOW christianity and therefore anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of christianity is labeled as non-christian or insane. While anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of islam must, of course, represent all of islam.

=========

Yup, gotta love the double standard.

Amazon wrote: catqueen wrote: "Anyway, i just read that he is being charged with terrorism and crimes against humanity. So the word 'terrorism' is being used. I have heard a lot of people differentiating from 'islamic terrorism' though, which seems odd."

Oh, it absolutely was terrorism. One of the things that infuriates me is that a lot of right-wing commentators have (unsurprisingly) not used the word terrorism, when they would have used it if a Muslim was responsible. There is a lot of Islamophibia on the right.

Anyway, terrorism refers to the killing of civilians for political purposes such as an Islamic group blowing up civilians because of the government's involvement in Iraq, and as such his killing civilians because of the government's policies is no different.

I agree -- the first day or two, i avoided reading or hearing much about it, but yesterday and today i did read a bit more.  i completely agree that it was terrorism -- the first day, i had heard that it was a 'madman' who went on a (fairly inexplicable) killing spree.  I assumed from what i had heard (from media) that it was someone with mental health issues, or other serious issues, who just shot people, but obviously as the numbers went up, it was clear that that wasn't really the case.  It was political, and it clearly was terrorism (although i still dont understand why his terrorist act is being (in the media) differentiated from 'islamic' terrorism -- i mean what difference does it make?  and that is when they dare to actually use the term terrorism).
I am finding the responses of people very disturbing and interesting though.  I said to a couple of people today, just to see what reaction i would get, that it is interesting that if you're white and kill for political reasons, you're considered insane, if you're brown, the question of insanity doesn't arise at all. 
The responses i got were varied:
blank stare and 'um... yeah... he's crazy, it was so sad what happened'

'yeah... i wonder why he did it... he must be crazy'

'yeah, well i'm very intimidated by muslims' (me: 'but if he WAS muslim, he'd be called a terrorist, not a madman.  So why is it different just because he's blonde and christian?') them: 'yeah, but i am very intimidated by muslims, i can't help it.  i have muslim friends, and i've told them that i find it intimidating when i see muslims in the street' (me: ready to tear hair out 'yeah, well i suppose thats what the media WANT us to feel, isn't it.  But most muslims aren't terrorists.  Same as most christians.  But we aren't intimidated by THIS guy simply because he's white, and yet, he did exactly the same thing!') them: 'yeah... but i still find them intimidating'

and my favourite:  'yeah well, a TERRORIST kills themselves too -- i mean muslims blow themselves up when they kill people, so they aren't around to deal with it.  So they aren't insane.  I mean this guy obviously feels like he was right, because he didnt kill himself.  So he must be insane, cos u just wouldn't do that.'  (me: 'yeah, but it was still a political reason for killing... so he was a terrorist, just he was a christian and white, but he is still a terrorist, he was protesting political issues...')  them: 'yeah, but it was terrible what he did, but he has some balls... i mean he doesnt care, he stayed around to face it... terrorists just kill themselves as well and then they don't have to deal with it... so i suppose he wanted to do something and isn't afraid who knows, but a terrorist escapes from it and kills themselves too.'  (me '... but there is no question asked if someone is brown and blows people up, so why is it different when he's white?!') them: 'yeah, well, thats cos it was just crazy what he did'

They are paraphrased, but u get the idea.
Quite scary really.  Another girl involved in the 'muslims are intimidating' convo said that she understands people being scared of muslims, because thats all we know of them.  And that if it was someone irish who was blowing people up, the world would be afraid of irish people, cos thats all they would know of us.  BUT i think that, while she has a point, it is more that media is powerful and manipulates us into thinking that muslims are a threat.  I said that, and nobody understood it.  :(

Sir GH wrote: Tero! wrote:

humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders.  Even when it isn't the reality.

===============

Exactly.  This is a basic part of the human condition, and has been so for tens of thousands of years.  The fear of the 'other tribe' or the guys who dress differently has always been our race's biggest fear.  This is how governments succeed in keeping people afraid.  Now their hands are tied because a white person did it.

I just think its going to be so interesting if he gets away on an insanity charge.  It will be extremely telling if he does...
I support having an insanity plea in general, and i know its hard to satisfy the criteria, and i know of people who didn't plead insane and should have, and were found out years later to be suffering mental illness. 
BUT we (the west) just had a 10 year 'war' on terrorism, and just killed bin laden WITHOUT A TRIAL... so it will be extremely interesting to see if a white guy gets off on an insanity plea. 
I dunno... i don't understand why we can't accept that we are all the same race, we are all the same species, i mean the whole race thing has very little scientific clout (as far as i know, in my very uneducated opinion/half remembered stuff), and WHY are we scared of each other and fightiing each other.  :(