Anders Behring Breivik, the Counter-Jihad Movement and the MSM

"Indeed, the more belligerent part of Mr. Breivik's ideology has less in common with counterjihad than with its archenemy, Al Qaeda. Both Mr. Breivik and Al Qaeda see themselves as engaged in a civilizational war between Islam and the West that extends back to the Crusades. Both fight on behalf of transnational entities: the "ummah'--or "community' of all Muslims--in the case of Al Qaeda, and Europe in the case of Mr. Breivik. Both frame their struggle as defensive wars of survival. Both hate their respective governments for collaborating with the outside enemy. Both use the language of martyrdom (Mr. Breivik calls his attack a "martyrdom operation'). Both call themselves knights, and espouse medieval ideals of chivalry. Both lament the erosion of patriarchy and the emancipation of women."

Hegghammer portrays both the international Islamist-jihadist-terrorist movement and Breivik as new "macropolitical" movements that advocate total war between clashing civilizations:

"Mr. Breivik and Al Qaeda are manifestations of the same generic ideological phenomenon: "macro-nationalism,'  variant of nationalism applied to clusters of nation-states held together by a notion of shared identity, like "he West'or the "ummah.' Etreme macro-nationalists view their people as under attack and fight in their defense. In the Muslim world, so-called pan-Islamism has a long history and has inspired militancy since at least the 1980s, when Arabs traveled to Afghanistan to fight with fellow Muslims against Soviet occupation. The West has long lacked similar movements, but the rise of counterjihad in the 2000s and the appearance of the Breivik manifesto suggest that this may be changing".

When we think about this analysis, the asymmetry it postulates between the"macropolitical" jihadist movement and its supposed Western, anti-Islamist counterpart is staggering. The jihadist "macropolitical" phenomena includes hundreds of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, thousands of terrorists, millions of people who support the terrorists financially or politically, and several governments--e.g. Iran , Syria , Pakistan --who support them as well. Hegghammer's postulated Western, anti-Islamist "macropolitical" movement, on the other hand, consists of--Anders Behring Breivik.

And then there is former BBC reporter Alan Hart, now writing for Dissident Voice, who compares Benyamin Netanyahu to Breivik:

"The main thing they have in common stems from the fact that they both live in fantasy worlds of their own creation and talk a lot of extreme rightwing nonsense.

"The nonsense Anders Breivik speaks is driven in general by his fears about the consequences for Norway of immigration and multiculturalism and, in particular, by his vision of an Islamic takeover.

"The nonsense Netanyahu speaks is driven by his perception of Israel in danger of annihilation.

"As he tells and sells it, the current biggest threat to Israel 's existence is, of course, Iran . Arguably the single most ridiculous statement he has made to date on this subject was in 2006 when, as the chairman of Likud, he addressed a gathering of Jewish American organizations. He said then, "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany .'

"So what Breivik and Netanyahu have in common is, it seems to me, the mania of victimhood."

On the other hand, Hart compares Breivik favorably to Netanyahu:

"The man now on trial for killing 77 people in bomb and gun attacks in Norway last July has admitted, even boasted about, what he did. Netanyahu denies Zionism's crimes."

Perhaps Hart's vicious comparisons require no comment, other than that they reveal the extreme malice and total disregard for truth of Israel's enemies.

While the pro-jihad, anti-Israeli demagogues have drawn false lessons from the Breivik disaster, there are some legitimate ones that may be drawn from it: A society like Norway, which seeks to avoid conflict at all costs through politeness, tact, forbearance, conciliation, compromise, and the "co-opting" of malcontents into cooperation with established institutions may succeed instead in exacerbating conflict and permitting it to escalate into extreme violence. After all, Breivik succeeded in getting the attention he wanted for his ideas, and above all for himself, by committing mass murder.

A society whose media generally avoids talking or writing about the serious conflicts that exist within it will permit these conflicts to fester. And a society that discourages from early childhood the expression of negative feelings by harmless or relatively harmless means such as crying, shouting, abusive language, or unconventional dress, may end up with the spectacle of Anders Behring Breivik, dressed in an elegant suit, discoursing calmly and in meticulous detail about the 77 murders he has committed.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).