The most shocking thing about Breivik is how many people agree with his his opinions.
Leaving aside that the prolonged and ruthless massacre itself was on balance, slightly more shocking than a bit of intellectual consensus, it shows just how quickly media outlets like New Statesman (yes, I realise hardly anyone buys it) are planning to exploit Breivik’s crime. The admirably public Norwegian criminal trial is treating Breivik as a bad man, but one who is entitled to due process, and the publicising of his beliefs is part of that.
Oddly enough, when I saw the list of his issues, which appear early on in the notorious video, I nodded my head too. Let me see:
The rise of cultural marxism in Western Europe. Er yes. For example, who said:
“In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.”
‘What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, where the centre of gravity of an issue lies, are conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it. The Guardian is their bible and political correctness their creed.’ He also attacks BBC bosses for their ‘vulnerability to political pressure’ and condemns ‘the callow opinionising of some of its reporters’.
Islamic colonisation of Europe is so obvious in certain areas it seems pointless to criticise it as a concept. As Ed West writes: “only the most dim-witted individual would claim that radical Islam is not a threat to Britain.” If Rowan Williams hadn’t recommended the adoption of sharia law in parts of the UK (only not his part, I’m guessing), if the utterly horrific London bombings had not taken place, if Theo van Gogh had not been brutally killed, if my medical colleagues hadn’t tried to bomb Glasgow airport and if many other similar scenarios had not happened, then I guess Breivik’s point would be extreme. The trouble is, they did happen.
Had Breivik not actually carried out his killing spree, his wild rhetoric would still have undermined his argument, although his video is actually pretty well constructed. None of this means that these topics are wrong though, or beyond discussion. Quite the opposite. Which brings us back to the home of cultural marxism, our friends at the New Statesman. These are discussions that they don’t want to have. Hence their attempt to portray Breivik as a lodestar for hundreds of millions of evil non-Muslim rather ordinary Western Europeans. He’s not.
Brendan O’Neill’s leftfield take on the whole business is that Breivik was actually narked by the fact that his particular disaffected minority wasn’t allowed into the privileged first class lounge that is “multiculturalism“. Just as things often come full circle such that the extreme left and the extreme right are remarkably similar in outlook and behaviour, Breivik has much more in common with Islamic terrorists than he’d like to admit .
The New Statesman editorial, amusingly if you like your humour black, conflates Breivik’s work with 9/11 using their unique variant on the Vietnam body count tool:
One in four Norwegians knew, or knew of, one or more of the victims. On a per capita basis, Norway lost twice as many people that day as the US did on 9/11.
Ah, thanks, now I get it. He’s obviously much worse than any fundamentalist Islamic killer, on the all important “per capita basis”. As stated earlier, it hasn’t taken long for the usual suspects – on the left – to exploit this one.