New Norwegian Killing 120


Last night two masked men in military uniform shot dead a 27 year old man in his home in Sandnes, Norway. Nowhere in the mainstream media can I find anybody wondering whether this is related to the massacre in Norway the day before – even though both were killings with guns, (very rare in Norway), and either this guy really was assassinated by soldiers, or both were carried out in false uniform.

Have I turned into a crazed conspiracy theorist, or is this lack of curiosity a little bit strange?

UPDATE
Can this second incident the same weekend in Norway of armed killers in uniforms relate in any way to the “two other cells” of which Breivik spoke in court? I am not claiming to know the answers, but there seem to me obvious questions here and I don’t understand why the media is not asking them.


120 thoughts on “New Norwegian Killing

1 2 3 4
  • Jon

    Andrew – I took your comment to be in jest, but I don’t think threats of drowning are helpful! If liberals are to make their case against violence, it might be best to do it without – err – threats of violence.
    .
    Alfred, there isn’t any manual pre-moderation here, although sometimes WordPress does hold some things back automatically (I think if it has more than one link inside the body of the comment). There are no trigger words as far as I know, nor are some commenters more likely to be held back than others. Your views are not more likely to be pre-censored.

  • Jon

    I agree with Writeon – how Breivik thought that this would change minds is peculiar, especially given that he presents as highly intelligent (notwithstanding his warped world-view and possible psychosis, I should add).
    .
    The frustration for the anti-immigration right-wing (both on the extreme right and the conservative right) is that Norwegians now will be steadfast in their general openness, and their liberal attitudes to immigration and multiculturalism. Changing that perspective now would look like they were giving in to terrorism. If we analyse the atrocity just in the narrow terms of how much it achieved Breivik’s manifesto aims (and it is difficult to do so given the scale of the murder involved) I suspect over the long term this will be seen as a massive own goal.

  • writeon

    There are a number of reasons for the rise of the nationalist right in Sandinavia. It began when the nationalist right made common cause with the those on the left who rejected the attitude of the Social Democrats, and the ruling conservative/economic elites to the European Union and post-nationalism. The central moral and ideological, intellectual idea behind the idea of an integrated and post-nationalist Europe, was simple; turn europe into one country economically so that the costly rivalization between the competing countries, which had led to so much destruction and loos of life, would become irrelevant, and counter-productive. War would become impossible again in Europe, because one would effectively be declaring war against oneself.

    But the nationalist right and large sections of the left saw the creation of a european super-state as a direct threat to the national state which they believed was the primary, or even holy, platform on which the ‘volk’ and their ‘unique’ culture sprang from. No nation, no volk.

    Coupled with opposition to the European Union was the second threat, the threat from the Muslim immigrants, who first came as cheap labour, and then, astonishingly, decided to stay. A new tribe on the block with a different religion, different skin colour, and a ‘challenging’ culture. The new jews.

    As in Nazi Germany, the threat posed by Muslims is a fantasy, but a useful one, precisely because it’s a fantasy and therefore extremely flexible as it isn’t subject to the normal rules of logic and reality.

    What’s shocking is that the language and rhetoric used by modern Scandinavian politicians and others who reek of Islamaphobia, is strickingly similar to the language used by the Nazi leadership in relation to Jews. The extraordinary emphasis on the primacy of ‘culture’, for example.

    Scandinavian elites are very conceited and regard themselves as being ‘moral super-powers’ compared to the more brutal and old-fashioned western imperialist powers. The idea of Scandiavian exceptionalism and superiority is deeply ingrained… and insufferable. I remember one particular example, when a politician on election night was singing the praises of the virtual unigueness of Scandinavian democracy, reminding his supporters that they were, after all, the least arrogant and most humble people in the world, aren’t we?

  • dreoilin

    In that context, Jon,
    A much re-tweeted tweet:
    G.W. Bush, 9/11: “We’re gonna hunt you down.”
    Stoltenberg, 22/7: “We will retaliate with more democracy”.

  • Edwin Stratton

    Craig, I have a friend in the town next door, very familiar with Sandnes. She tells me there are biker gangs in the area, and that attacks on each other aren’t unheard of. She translated the term ‘military fatigues’ to ‘army surplus, just like you get in Camden’. She says it’s unconnected to Oslo or Utoya, perhaps a Hells Angel turf war incident.

  • technicolour

    CanSpeccy/Alfred’s classic tactic of attempting to present a virulent and vicious philosophy as rational fact has wasted hours of people’s time here. In a way I’m pleased to see him showing his true colours (‘genuine crusader’ indeed) but in another find it so sickening and distasteful that I’m tempted to wish he’d been moderated at birth: into a decent, honest sort of person, preferably.

    The Pew report is indeed utterly flawed: did quite a bit of research on it, which I will pull up when I have time. The worst thing about its existence, though, when one comes down to it, is that even starting to combat its mixture of false assumption and disinformation forces even normal people to sound like racists, since its basic premise is racist. Otherwise, I fear that people who want to fabricate despicable things about other people are hardly likely to be persuaded by real facts: look at old ‘CanSpeccy’ here. Generally, I second Andy.

  • writeon

    … and as to multiculturalism, well, I think the very idea, or ideology of the monoculture, the nation as a state, the ‘volk’ as the exclusive and holy basis of the state; is an incredibly dangerous… quasi-religious…myth. What strikes me about Breivik is his collosal arrogance and his massive ignorance. Half-baked ideas, half-understood concepts. A bizarre mismash of Ayn Rand’s rabid ultra-liberalism and Dan Brown’s Da Vinci codes, with a bit of Tolkien thrown in for good measure!

    Imagine filling one’s head with this crap, turning pulp-history into an ideology, and then going on a ghastly killing spree to project oneself onto the central media stage… I’m going to write my manefesto on the subway walls using the blood of innocent children, to force people to see and understand how serious a thinker I am!

  • wendy

    “Wendy you are about right on the demise of Christendom. But you do not understand the meaning of the word “race,” which is a perfectly normal and valid biological term which is quite distinct from species.”
    .
    .
    there are no races in human species : scientific fact. Genetics informs us of that fact: there is not enough difference between different peoples for the status of race to be conferred upon any imagined distinct peoples.
    .
    im afraid youre living in lala land if you think that the human species has anything other than the one race we all belong to.
    .

  • dreoilin

    Technicolour,
    I’m smiling at your “moderated at birth”. And you’re quite right, he has wasted hours here in the past.

  • Scouse Billy

    David Cameron’s loyalties lie where exactly?
    .
    “For those who are sensitive about mention of Israel, it is worth emphasising that this article is not about the rights or wrongs of Israel as a nation or its people – our interest and attention is directed to David Cameron, Britain as a Sovereign nation and the Conservative Party. In particular we believe that the British public are entitled to know and understand what their Prime Minister is doing – especially where National loyalty, conflict of interest and treason are concerned.”
    .
    http://www.ukcolumn.org/articles/britain-or-israel

  • craig Post author

    Edwin Stratton

    Thank you. I hope you are right, but that all sounds a little complacent. Do these bikers generally wear this army surplus stuff (if so its a different bike culture) and do their attacks on each other often include shootings? It’s a damn strange sounding sub-culture.

    Looks like an extremely nice middle class house in the photo.

  • Jon

    Alfred/CanSpeccy,
    .
    I think it is fair to say that the phenomenon in Norway is illustrative of how the tunnel-vision of the internet and the wide availability of websites dedicated to (even non-violent) extreme perspectives lend support to deranged individuals such as Breivik.
    .
    But I wondered given the ways in which you have talked about race in the past, you may have declined to appear on these threads. Previously, you described immigration as a ‘genocide’ – knowing full well the impact of such a loaded term. You refer to Duncan – who has a history of writing nuanced and historically well-informed articles here – as a mass immigration “fanatic”. Worryingly – notwithstanding your condemnation of his violence – you refer to Breivik potentially as “a genuine crusader”. It is precisely this kind of black and white thinking – replete as it is with extraordinarily inflammatory language – that lends metaphorical ammunition to lone madmen.
    .
    > In fact it seems most probable that the elite aim is to create one mongrel,
    > deracinated race of helots, without national identity, religion or culture
    > of any meaningful kind — merely the culture that arises as a biproduct of
    > the commercial system.
    .
    I don’t see why you think that is the most probable outcome. But again, even the language you think in (“mongrel”, “deracinated”) is extreme, angry, uncharitable. This is fuel on the fire, and not helpful. It lacks nuance.
    .
    I debated direct democracy with Evgueni on another thread, and my main objection to it at that point was that it could give rise to a tyranny of the majority – presently towards Muslims. I hear what you’re saying about democratic wishes, but given that you would assert the media is deliberately biased, would you not consider that people’s views about immigration are at least in part a function of the propaganda they have been subjected to? You would assert, I imagine, that the media – being under the control of the elites of which you speak – is mainly liberal and pro-immigration. But it can be shown that the largest media outlets (predominantly Murdoch’s) are very right-wing and aggressively xenophobic – Fox News in particular, and to a substantial degree The Sun also. Even the nominally respectable Daily Telegraph in the UK checks what Migration Watch thinks whenever it can, and I see the BBC is again giving the BNP a fresh platform.
    .
    The media rush to link the atrocities in Norway to a non-specific “Al-Qaeda” further illustrates this phenomenon – “was it the Muslims”? So, I would contend that if the media wasn’t so good at stirring up race-based sentiment, support for anti-immigration policies and complaints against multiculturalism would fall dramatically.
    .
    In any case, given that the media carries such aggressive xenophobia, how do you square that with what you say is a pro-immigration elite? Either the global media are the elite, or are under their control – and yet the media are pursuing the opposite line to what you believe the elite wants.

  • dreoilin

    Writeon,
    Those of us who voted against joining the EEC, and against subsequent treaties, were concerned about issues other than defending the ‘volk’. Admittedly, Ireland had not been independent for very long, and it seemed a bit much to throw it away, given all the lives lost in achieving it. But women like me who had young sons were worried about a common defense policy. We did not want to see our sons drafted into a European Defense Force. And in the early days, we were assured over and over that it would never arise …

  • Jon

    Technicolour/Dreoilin
    .
    > And you’re quite right, [Alfred] has wasted hours here in the past.
    .
    I think it is better that Alfred can be open with his views even if some believe they are hateful and poisonous, so that they can be discussed and criticised openly. Just imagine if Breivik had presented his ideas on a liberal blog some years ago – if people had involved him in a genuine discussion, perhaps some switch might have been thrown (or not thrown) in his head, and history would have played out much less violently.

  • Martin

    For the hard of thinking:

    Canspeccy’s reference to the possibility that Breviek might be a “genuine crusader” is, as unsavoury as it might seem, an entirely valid one.

    Tt doesn’t matter what YOU think Dreolin (or me, or anyone else) – if BREVIEK himself thought he was being a “crusader” – no matter how misguided or insane that sounds to you, me or anyone else – then yes, that would validate him as being a “genuine crusader”.

    Clearly CanSpeccy, when writing his original reference to this “genuine crusader” aspect assumed a certain degree of intelligence in the people likely to read it. Looks like he underestimated the “intelligence” of a number of the readers here.

  • Martin

    For underestimated, please do read “overestimated”: I’m not past being a thick cunt myself sometimes.

  • Jon

    @Martin, I don’t think it is invalid or deliberately biased to read “genuine crusader” as having a note of praise to it. Alfred will hopefully elucidate.
    .
    Incidentally, I don’t think it is fair to label people with whom one disagrees as unintelligent – there was good reasoning behind this particular response, even if it turns out that Alfred has been misunderstood. My view is that it is best to assume intelligence as well as good faith of ideological opponents – since we’re all searching for the truth, presumably, even if we come at it from different angles and directions.

  • Scouse Billy

    “we’re all searching for the truth, presumably, even if we come at it from different angles and directions.”

    Jon, this place attracts many disinfo shills – hadn’t you noticed 😉

  • technicolour

    Martin:

    Yes of course it matters what Dreoilin thinks, or indeed, what you think, about Britvik. What I think is that the man was clearly insane; but not only do I think this, his actions prove it. He may have considered himself a ‘genuine crusader’. I am no more obliged to treat this view seriously than I would accept a statement by Suharto claiming to be working on behalf of indigenous peoples. It is so plainly, empirically wrong.*

    Your theory that people are not what they ‘are’ but what they believe they are is an interesting one, however. Equally interesting is that ‘CanSpeccy’ would urge this point of view (or as I prefer to call it, double think) on a board already sickened by the action itself.

    By the way: “I’m not past being a thick cunt myself sometimes”

    Is that a good thing?

    *Unless, of course, one takes the view that the Crusaders were an insane bunch of greedy ruthless religious fanatics, and I doubt all of them were.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    I agree, Jon. I have made the point several times over the past two days that people who run websites which provide background ‘hum’ to the Far Right need to take responsibility for the words they write, since clearly they seemed to have formed part of the reiforcement and echo chamber of this mass murderer’s ‘journey’, though of course we are still learning the facts.
    .
    I think it best that people are open about what they think and are challenged, equally openly, on this. I don’t think, however, that a political blog is a therapeutic service; I am not suggesting that you were inferring that it was.
    .
    I do think it disgraceful that some of these people – and I detect a frisson of this in relation to the specific contributor to whom you alluded – seem almost to be gleeful that this massacre has happened, as though it somehow renders some of sort of (bogus) credibility to their untenable, unscientific and, frankly, (and I say this again becasue it needs to be said) racist, positions. I do not read any evidence in the writings of this contributor of sincere condemnation of this act. I think that everyone can see this, clearly, and accordingly, viscerally now as well as (that which one already knew – and which Duncan’s and others’ excellent, evidence-based posts underline) intellectually, can deduce the extreme pole whence the contributor’s arguments and world-view emanate. This contributor’s approach is fairly typical of a certain segment of the web-centred Far Right.
    .
    I openly confronted the contributor around Christmas-time and refused to let go because I felt it was time to call their bluff, to stop beating around the bush, to stop playing around with elegant words and call it out for what it is.
    .
    The Norway massacre is not some new and exciting, clever or heroic manifestation; it is simply second-rate ‘brownshirt’ Nazis doing what they’ve always done.

  • dreoilin

    “if BREVIEK himself thought he was being a “crusader” … then yes, that would validate him as being a “genuine crusader”
    .
    Is that what your ‘intelligence’ is telling you, Martin? So, if I think I’m a pink lizard from Venus, that validates me as a pink lizard from Venus?
    I see.
    Leaving that aside, what Alfred said was, “The inability of people like Andy and Mary to grasp that Breivik, whether a pawn in a psyop or a genuine crusader, has …”
    He made no reference to what Breivik thought, or how he saw himself. He posed three possibilities as to what he WAS.
    .
    Scouse Billy, thanks for the recommendation. I’ll probably go off and have a peek at that now, as arguing before bed tends to keep me awake. 🙂

  • technicolour

    In fact, since ‘a bunch of greedy ruthless religious fanatics’ accurately describes certain elements of the far right perhaps calling this person a ‘crusader’ was not so far off the mark, after all. CanSpeccy, perhaps I should applaud you for condemning him, his ideology and all the people who would exploit it with such a damning parallel.

  • Richard Robinson

    “if BREVIEK himself thought he was being a “crusader” – no matter how misguided or insane that sounds to you, me or anyone else – then yes, that would validate him as being a “genuine crusader”.”

    Um. Crusader ? It rather depends what you mean by “genuine”, doesn’t it ? Or did he actually think he was conquering Jerusalem ?

    If he thinks he’s a crusader, that validates him as such ? And I’m the Queen of Sheba.

    It is a waste of time, because nothing changes.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    Good point technicolour – the forerunners of corporations were partnership agreements between two or more knights on crusade on how they would split the loot up.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.