Posts
Did the anti-Islamic and anti-immigration ideas on the web lead this evil man to kill so many innocent people? Or the changes in Norwegian society themselves and the prevalent anti-racist ideology?
The answer is that no ideas led him to kill but an inner compulsion and satanic pride. In the lost childhood of Judas, Jesus was betrayed.
But I doubt if he is mad and I am sure he is as much a political actor as the Al Qaeda conspirators.
No-one thinks they are mad or that the restoration of the Caliphate is a literally insane reason for killing innocent people.
Why is that? Because he is one and Al Qaeda are many I suppose.
The psychology of terrorists has been explored brilliantly by one of the greatest men of the last century, Joseph Conrad, a political conservative though a modernist writer, in two of the very greatest of all novels: The Secret Agent and Under Western Eyes. They also happen to be the first two examples of the spy story genre and I am sure the best.
Conrad wrote at the very beginning of the terrorist era. Since then it has become clear that mass killings will happen for the foreseeable future so long as societies remain relatively free, while state actors kill civilians in war and peace for political reasons and modern communications enable terrorists to hope to profit from their killings by gaining publicity, concessions and adherents to their causes. Like the Roman poet foreseeing he Tiber running with blood, to coin a phrase, I can easily imagine chemical, biological or nuclear weapons being used.
Actually, although I am trying to avoid knowing anything about the killer's 'manifesto' (had it been 20 pp. instead of 1500 pp. it would be more dangerous) its seems his ideas are quite sound until he decides they justify killing and some resemble my own: the Marxist origins of political correctness; the dangers of population movements and especially of Muslim immigration.
The manifesto is evidence of how deeply out of date and unfashionable prejudice is these days. Even the killer said that he was anti-racist and pro-homosexual.
He is also a Freemason and did not attend church but is still called a Christian fundamentalist. So is McVeigh, the first of the great terrorists, who went to his execution cursing God.
Perhaps murderers are a bit like the Rorschach Ink Spot Test in which the subject sees what he wants to see.
But I doubt if he is mad and I am sure he is as much a political actor as the Al Qaeda conspirators.
No-one thinks they are mad or that the restoration of the Caliphate is a literally insane reason for killing innocent people.
Why is that? Because he is one and Al Qaeda are many I suppose.
The psychology of terrorists has been explored brilliantly by one of the greatest men of the last century, Joseph Conrad, a political conservative though a modernist writer, in two of the very greatest of all novels: The Secret Agent and Under Western Eyes. They also happen to be the first two examples of the spy story genre and I am sure the best.
Conrad wrote at the very beginning of the terrorist era. Since then it has become clear that mass killings will happen for the foreseeable future so long as societies remain relatively free, while state actors kill civilians in war and peace for political reasons and modern communications enable terrorists to hope to profit from their killings by gaining publicity, concessions and adherents to their causes. Like the Roman poet foreseeing he Tiber running with blood, to coin a phrase, I can easily imagine chemical, biological or nuclear weapons being used.
Actually, although I am trying to avoid knowing anything about the killer's 'manifesto' (had it been 20 pp. instead of 1500 pp. it would be more dangerous) its seems his ideas are quite sound until he decides they justify killing and some resemble my own: the Marxist origins of political correctness; the dangers of population movements and especially of Muslim immigration.
The manifesto is evidence of how deeply out of date and unfashionable prejudice is these days. Even the killer said that he was anti-racist and pro-homosexual.
He is also a Freemason and did not attend church but is still called a Christian fundamentalist. So is McVeigh, the first of the great terrorists, who went to his execution cursing God.
Perhaps murderers are a bit like the Rorschach Ink Spot Test in which the subject sees what he wants to see.
The killer (I do not know his name and do not wish to use it) seems to have rejected the modern age In plenty of ways I am out of sympathy with it. He is a lesson that rejecting, not taking part in, your own generation means narcissism and death.
(Footnote: In the face of such horror it seems wrong to talk about its political impact but it is inescapable. His actions will presumably hurt the anti-immigration argument although this is not certain and it is impossible to know how much. Certainly not so much as had he killed Muslims. It is possible over time that it will have the opposite effect. What is very strange is that the London underground bombings did not lead to support for anti-immigration and Islamosceptic politics. These things can be used by the liberals but it doesn't work the other way round. But let the children be buried before we go into this.)
Somewhere I read yesterday that Norway has comparatively few immigrants/immigrant descendants and though they make up 20% of the population of Oslo this is small compared to other capitals in Europe. Can this be true? Can it? I cannot find the link. [Footnote: Wikipedia says 28%.]
A final footnote. I came across this excerpt from a speech delivered in 2005 from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by Sheikh Issam Amira, who preaches the Islamic revolution. We Catholics pray for the conversion of England to Catholicism (or used to - liberal priests would not, I imagine) so I cannot and do not object to a Muslim wanting Norway to be Muslim. Maybe some Norwegians might.
A final footnote. I came across this excerpt from a speech delivered in 2005 from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by Sheikh Issam Amira, who preaches the Islamic revolution. We Catholics pray for the conversion of England to Catholicism (or used to - liberal priests would not, I imagine) so I cannot and do not object to a Muslim wanting Norway to be Muslim. Maybe some Norwegians might.
“Listeners! The Moslems in Denmark make up three percent [of the population], yet constitute a threat to the future of the Danish kingdom. It’s no surprise that in Bitrab [the ancient name of Medina, a city in Arabia to which Mahomet immigrated from Mecca] they were fewer than three percent of the general population, but succeeded changing the regime in Bitrab.
“It’s no surprise that our brothers in Denmark have succeeded in bringing Islam to every home in that country. Allah will grant us victory in their land to establish the [Islamic] revolution in Denmark.”
After Denmark, the Sheikh said, Norway would be next and the name of Oslo would be changed change to Medina.
“They will fight against their Scandinavian neighbors in order to bring the country into the territory of the revolution. In the next stage, they will fight a holy jihad to spread Islam to the rest of Europe, until it spreads to the original city of Medina where the two cities will unite under the Islamic flag.”
“We are at the gates of the Islamic revolution. The global forces of evil will be eliminated from the world and the Islamic nation will remain in place in order to bring about the world Islamic revolution, with its capital, Jerusalem.”
No comments:
Post a Comment