|
July 26, 2011
Peter Hartcher has a rather strange article in the Sydney Morning Herald about the complex relationship between ideology, Anders Behring Breivik's massacre of Norwegian citizens, Muslims, Islamophobia, extreme xenophobia and religious prejudice.
It is strange, not wing nut weird extreme of say a Jennifer Rubin in Murdoch's Washington Post or the multitude of “terror experts” and “homeland security” pundits who were so quick to blame Islamic terrorists with links to Al Qaeda.
Steve Bell
Entitled Norwegian massacre is wrong, not far right Hartcher's argument about this form of right wing terrorism is that:
Much media reaction to the tragedy has conflated the incident with the rise of far-right parties in Europe. The coverage implies that Breivik's attack is an extension of the trend and a frightening portent.This is exactly wrong. His use of violence to pursue a "crusade" to halt the "Islamicisation [sic] of Europe" has discredited his cause, not advanced it. This is the worst thing that has happened to the far right in western Europe in years.
Hartcher's argument appears to be that Breivik is a mad butcher. Ideology --ie. ultra white conservatism --- has little to do with his actions, even though Breivik is, judging from his writings, politically, more or less a Scandinavian Tea Partyer, obsessed with the imagined threat of the Islamification of Europe; and an avowed opponent of both multiculturalism and Marxism (ie., leftism) which controls the universities and the media. Breivik styles himself in his writings as a Christian conservative, patriot and nationalist.
The European cultural conservatism is familiar to us in Australia. One strand is the antagonism to Marxism. Another is a resentment of the liberal defenders of diversity. These liberal "elites" are often described as "traitors", "sellouts" or just "naive multiculturalists". Another strand is the conviction that Islam is incompatible with the democratic values of the west. Cultural pluralism is seen as a threat to national cohesion.
Martin Rowson
These are views of the anti-Islam conservatives gathered around Quadrant in Australia, resolute in their defence of Australian culture. Muslims are not biologically inferior (as the old racist discourse holds); they are culturally incompatible. They then argue that Leftists will happily allow Muslim to flood Australia under the guise of multiculturalism. Their clash of civilization view is one in which there is a struggle between political Islam and Western culture.
Update
Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post is forced by facts to backtrack from her Islamic terrorist claim and acknowledge that it was a blond Norwegian.Then this:
that the suspect here is a blond Norwegian does not support the proposition that we can rest easy with regard to the panoply of threats we face or that homeland security, intelligence and traditional military can be pruned back. To the contrary, the world remains very dangerous because very bad people will do horrendous things. There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West.
Rubin makes no mention of the conservative ethno-nationalist ideological war with the liberal, multicultural West. What we are offered is: "There are lone-wolf domestic terrorists, and there are organized jihadists."
Brevik's manifesto. The Brevik video manifesto. These call for a Christian war to defend Europe against Islam.
|
Terrorists are Muslims for western conservatives-- it means violence committed by Muslims whom the West hates.
A right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause is not a terrorist. He is an extremist. Or a madman.