By Michael Faulkner – August 05, 2011
The horrific murders perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik
in Oslo and on Otoya island in July, have left Norway in deep shock and the reaction everywhere
has been one of incomprehension of the cold-blooded barbarity with which the
massacre was carried out. In attempting to comprehend what could have led
someone to unleash a bloodbath such as this, it is tempting to treat it as just
another, albeit more horrendous, example of the sort of thing that has occurred
all too often in the United States, Britain and elsewhere in recent years: a
lone gunman goes on the rampage, shooting as many innocent people as he can
until he is either dispatched by armed police or takes his own life. In most such
cases those who commit these acts are considered to be deranged people,
suffering from severe personality disorders and motivated by deep personal
grudges against imagined enemies or against the world in general. They are said
to be “madmen” and are often described by the tabloid press as “maniacs”.
The diagnosis has been much the same in the case of the
Norwegian killer. In a common sense sort of way it seems unarguable: anyone
capable of doing something like this must be mad or deranged. It may be that in
many cases such people can properly be considered psychopaths. But too often
such simplistic explanations provide a convenient excuse for avoiding serious
questions about their motives. Interestingly, certain acts of terrorism
resulting in large-scale loss of life, have not generally been regarded as the
work of madmen. IRA bombings targeting civilians and the atrocities committed
by al-Qaeda, are rightly regarded as politically or ideologically motivated
acts. However else he has been described, Osama bin-Laden was not thought to be
mad. Neither are the suicide bombers who routinely blow themselves up, killing
as many others as possible, in what they perceive to be acts of martyrdom for
the cause they believe in. The
lone, rampaging gunman, randomly killing his victims, is thought to be the real
maniac.
But it is clear that the Norwegian, Breivik, is a
politically motivated fanatic. His views about Muslims and multi-culturalism
are shared to one degree or another by countless people throughout Europe and
beyond. Much of what he has written in the “manifesto” he posted on the
internet just before he went on his killing spree, is the common parlance of
right-wing political parties and groups. Such views are to be found daily in
much of the British tabloid press, where hostility to immigrants and
asylum-seekers is an integral part of the daily diet dished up to the readers.
In fact, much to her embarrassment, one British journalist, Daily Mail
columnist Melanie Phillips who specializes in this sort of thing, gets a
favorable mention in Breivik’s Islamophobic rant. Of course, she and the many
others who peddle that brand of anti-immigrant intolerance, cannot be held
responsible for the acts of one who carried such intolerance to what he
regarded as its necessary conclusion.
Perhaps the best way to understand the mentality of someone
who thinks it justifiable – even necessary – to blow up public
buildings and shoot down in cold blood scores of innocent young people in what
he regards as a noble cause, is to try to establish the connection between his
ideological views and the actions to which they led him. His view of the world,
shared by many and widely disseminated in the press and on the internet, may
loosely be described as apocalyptic. Broadly speaking he sees a world-wide
“culture clash” between Islam and Western Civilization (or, in some versions,
“Christendom”). Islam, regarded as a benighted, medieval and intolerant
religion, is in the process of seeking European and world domination through
mass immigration of Muslims into western Europe and the wider “Christian”
world, where sooner rather than later there will be a demographic shift which
will result in the “Islamization” first of Europe and later the world. In this
view, Islam is at war with the west and will stop at nothing to achieve its
goal. Unless this relentless drive is halted, it will mean the end of
civilization as we know it.
Breivik believes that the “war for the defense of western
civilization” has already started, but that “Christendom” hasn’t woken up to
the fact. He regards himself as a vanguard warrior in the struggle for survival
against the dark forces of evil. His fascination with the myths and
paraphernalia of the more romantic brands of European fascism (the Knights
Templar; uniforms and insignia)
testify to his obsession with discipline, self-discipline and total commitment
to the course he has chosen. Whether he has collaborated with others is
actually unimportant. His self-belief and preparedness to act are all that
matters.
Some have wondered why it was that, detesting Muslims as he
does, he didn’t simply go to a heavily populated Muslim district and open fire
on “the enemy”. This misses an important point. He needed to strike at what he
regards as the heart of the conspiracy: the Norwegian politicians who have
infiltrated the Trojan horse into the fortress. These are the traitors. Those
still blind to their treason – the majority of the population –
must be made to see the truth and be awakened to the mortal danger they face.
This accounts for the target of the Oslo bombing. But what of the mass-murder
at the Labour Party youth camp? This was also clearly thought through and far
from random. In his view the party of government is a hotbed of traitors to
Norway. What better way to destroy this organization than to massacre its
youngest and most dedicated members, thus striking terror into the hearts of
any young person foolish enough to be hoodwinked into joining the movement.
This is the explanation Breivik himself has given. The decision to act, taken
on the basis of his conspiracy theory, followed logically from it. Very few of
those who think like him would consider taking such a step. His action was that
of a true fanatic, but fanatics are not necessarily insane. He seems to believe
that if he is given the opportunity to explain himself to the Norwegian people,
they will exonerate him and possibly approve his actions. There is no need to
say that in this respect he is mistaken.
Breivik’s fanaticism is authentically fascist. His
single-minded fanaticism and belief in his “mission” enabled him to commit an
atrocity so horrendous that one is almost rendered speechless. But such
fanaticism is the hallmark of fascism and in this respect it is instructive to
compare his world outlook and his actions with those of Hitler and the Nazis.
Hitler, who has also been regarded by some as mad, believed
throughout his life that he was engaged in a titanic struggle against the
forces of evil which were hell-bent on subduing Europe and conquering the world
– the Jews and Communism - or the “Judeo-Bolshevik Conspiracy”. In the
early 1920s, he and his fledging party coined the slogan “Deutschland Erwache”
– Germany Awake. The people had to be made aware of the mortal danger
they faced from these alien forces which had infiltrated German society and
were destroying it from within. Those who disagreed with the Nazi
“Weltanschauung” (world outlook), were either fools or traitors. The fools had
to be cured of their foolishness and the traitors had to be eliminated. The
stakes in this life-or-death struggle were too high to be squeamish about the
use of violence. It is worth noting that the Nazis always used the terms
“fanatic” and “fanaticism” approvingly when describing their own actions. Such
was the fanaticism inculcated into so many young Germans that, by the outbreak
of World War Two they were prepared, in the interests of the “ethnic cleansing”
of Europe, to kill not only soldiers in combat, but unarmed men, women and
children. It was, they believed, in a noble cause. Those they killed were all,
including the children, mortal enemies of European civilization and, when the
people understood properly what a great service the Nazis were rendering, they
would be grateful to them.
The Austrian physician Ella Lingens-Reiner, in her book
Prisoners of Fear, (1948) a chilling account of her incarceration in Auschwitz,
recounts a conversation she had with an SS officer at the end of 1944. She
describes him as “an ardent fanatic”. He tells her that “there is one achievement
that will stand, and future generations will thank us for it……we have freed
Europe from the Jews for good.” “What”, she says “could I reply? There was no answer, for we did not
speak the same language. He seemed to me completely mad – just as mad as
I must have seemed to him because I failed to share his views.”
The “ardent fanatic” at Auschwitz in 1944 is the spiritual
father of the fanatic Breivik today. No doubt he regards those who do not share
his views or approve his actions as blind or mad. It behooves us all to
consider very seriously the connection between his fanatical racist views and
his horrific acts. He is fully responsible for what he did and cannot simply be
written off as a madman.