Norwegian Carnage Holds Uncomfortable Lessons - 5th August 2011
The actions of an evil terrorist in Norway
exposed societal flaws that exacerbated the carnage;
the reactions so far are unlikely to deter future such attacks.
It is hard to imagine a course of action more likely to bring long-term
discredit to the causes he says he espouses than the criminal murderous
rampage of Anders Behring Breivik that left the corpses of
77 innocent people blown up, shot or drowned.
Back to beginning
Not just Norwegians, but all normal human beings are rightly consumed
with outrage over his actions first in downtown Oslo, then on that
idyllic island of Utøya in the Tyri fjord an hour's drive away.
There is neither excuse nor punishment severe enough to match the evil
that he wrought. Indeed, in Norway which abolished the death penalty
in 1979 the maximum penalty for murder is only 21 years, with
seven off for good behaviour. As far as I know, multiple sentences must
be served concurrently not consecutively; otherwise 77 x 21 =
1,617 years, effectively
might have been expected. Instead, he could be out by 2025, though
I am sure (hope!) the Norwegians will nevertheless find some barely
legal ruse to keep him
under lock and key forever.
Back to beginning
The other reason for fury, albeit of less severity under the
circumstances, is the damage this wicked man has brought upon what are,
in themselves, perfectly respectable objectives. Unworthy means do
not make objectives unworthy. The IRA waged a war against the
people of both Britain and Ireland for thirty years, which resulted in
3,000 unwarranted deaths. Its means were vile, but the objective of getting
Britain out of Northern Ireland was respectable. Sinn Fein is
today a democratic party which has eschewed violence, has parliamentary
representation both north and south of the border, yet its objective
remains identical to that of the IRA. The difference is that the
IRA sought/seeks to achieve this though the bullet, Sinn Fein now
espouses the ballot.
Breivik's objectives are spelled out in the 1500-page 770,000-word
- A European Declaration of Independence”,
here) that he issued on the internet just before his massacre.
Not all of these are respectable, but many are. Here are a few,
for which I have provided some of the justifications that are often advanced.
I have not used Breivik's arguments.
Anti-immigration and exclusive nationalism
Because as the only Western-style democratic state in the Middle
East, it finds itself at the forefront of the “clash of
civilisations” between the democratic West and an
oppressive, backward and violent Islam.
Anti-Turkish EU membership
An influx of 75m mostly poor Muslims, many sympathetic of
Islamism, into the mainly Judeo/Christian/Secular European Union
of 500m can only spell trouble in the long if not short term.
This phenomenon is already apparent in pockets within France,
Netherlands, Sweden to name just three EU countries where Muslim
ascendancy has led to no-go areas and endemic Islamicist
violence against native peoples.
Getting rid of the European Union
The EU has far exceeded its original Treaty of Rome mandate - a free-trade club
of countries that would simply permit free movement of goods,
capital and people within its boundaries.
It has become a monolithic pseudo-European government, replete
waste on a monumental scale,
accounts which have failed every annual audit
unnecessary interference in
the lives of 500 million
citizens within its boundaries and
dreams of ever greater
Extraordinarily, Brussels now makes 80% of the laws of EU member
states; the noble concept of
subsidiarity has long been
Whether the €uro ends up as a blessing or curse is very much an
open question as the
PIGIS' economies teeter ever closer to the
Anthropogenic climate change is a scam
What Breivik has done has made such arguments, even though polls show
they broadly have the support of up to a quarter of EU citizens, almost
unsayable in public, much to the delight of the multicultural global
Back to beginning
Clearly, one of these is
Norway's official representative in Israel, Ambassador
Svein Sevje, who took leave of his senses when he suggested that Hamas terrorism against Israel
is more justified than Breivik's attack against Norway, because “we
Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against
Israel”. In other words, terrorism against Israeli
citizens is the fault of Israel; there anyway is no
just settlements in disputed territory that has never been Palestinian.
Another is former Norwegian prime minister and
current chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee Thorbjorn Jagland.
In response to the violent attacks, he
admonishes British PM David Cameron and other European leaders (Sarkozy?
Merkel) be more
when talking about multiculturalism and to cease
“playing with fire”
by using rhetoric that could be exploited by extremists such as Breivik.
In other words, stop saying anti-left-wing stuff I don't like because I
have no rational answer for it.
At the other end of the spectrum, when
Mario Borghezio, an Italian MEP and a leader of Italy's Northern League,
which is part of Silvio Berlusconi's ruling coalition, recently
“some of the ideas [Breivik] expressed are good, barring
the violence, some of them are great”,
“opposition to Islam [is] shared by 100 million Europeans”.
went on to praise Breivik's call for a
“crusade by Christians against Europe's drift toward Islam”.
uproar ensured. He was suspended from his party for three months and
forced to make a grovelling
apology to Norway,
as did cabinet minister Roberto Calderoli also. It's as if he
was preaching that dislike of chocolate justified burning down the local
Cadburys factory with all the workers inside.
Do not be surprised if these insane reactions lead to calls for the
curtailment of speech that some on the left designate to be
Make love not war
Back to beginning
An assumption has quickly arisen that agreeing with what Breivik says
makes you a massacre enthusiast. But agreeing with what the
Norwegian Labour party stands for makes you automatically virtuous,
because that party was the target of Breivik and your support is a proxy
for support of his victims. Broadly speaking, Labour's
instinct is to oppose pretty much everything that Breivik embraces in
the list above, as would its love-child the
Workers' Youth League, or AUF, whose annual get-together on Utøya
Island was Breivik's target. The Party and League seem to be
imbued with 1960s California hippie mentality - you know, of the
“make love not war”
variety. This screams out at you when you read the
statements of its MP
Renate Håheim and prime minister Jens Stoltenberg
“If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how
much love we together can create. Violence creates violence, hate
creates hate ... Our answer [to Breivik] is more democracy, more openness and more
humanity – but never naivety.”
Noble sentiments, perhaps, if mushy, but the
lack of resolve is palpable. Fortunately, Breivik seems to be
a lone-wolf, so his non-existence colleagues will not continue the
fight. Nevertheless, such statements make it perfectly clear
that these Norwegian politicians would be similarly supine in the
face of ferocious attacks by Islamicists or other organised
terrorists, whose likelihood will have now increased as a result.
In fact this lack of resolve and
mentality are symptomatic of very many
people in Europe today. The virtue of peace is indisputable,
but when the desire for peace clouds out the necessity of sometimes
having to fight to preserve it, the desire for peace perversely
makes peace less likely to prevail over time. People who won't
fight always lose the fight. it's not rocket science.
The Sunday Times reports (£)
that a male Utøya survivor said
“Norway should not go the American
way - you cannot fight violence with violence”,
which perhaps says it all.
Back to beginning
These days, boys are rarely any longer taught
to box or other forms of self-defence. They are constantly
dissuaded from war games and fighting; indeed you will search toy
shops in vain to find guns, bows-and-arrows, swords, slings, lances
and other paraphernalia of make-believe war that were the staples of
boyhood just a couple of decades ago. They are
constantly urged to suppress their natural aggressive energies and
when conflict arises to always seek compromise and reconciliation.
Mark Steyn captured this perfectly some years
ago in a
Daily Telegraph column, where a Mum took away her little son's
toy sword as it was too
but allowed him to keep the shield. Thereafter, Junior would
play in the yard with nothing but his shield,
“mastering the art of cowering more
effectively against unseen blows”.
The situation is exacerbated by the tragic
absence for many a boy of his father at home and of male teachers at
school, on whom he can look as role models.
The result is the gradual feminisation of boys
along with the blurring of differences with girls. When it is
necessary for a male to do something difficult, dangerous or
unpleasant, fewer of them are able or prepared to step up to the
In 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank.
On that dreadful dark cold night, the phrase
“women and children first” assumed real meaning. In
order to let the ladies and their youngsters board the too-few
functioning lifeboats, most men stood aside, and even
threw life belts to passengers in the water, knowing that as a result
they would die a terrible death in icy black water - which they then
did. The band members (all male) knowingly continued to play
to help avoid panic, until they too succumbed to the same fate.
Edward John Smith, 62, voluntarily drowned with his ship.
Thus the newspaper sub-heading, “Survivors Mostly Women and
Children”. Such mass
nobility and manliness is unthinkable in 2011. Indeed, the
phrases themselves have become clichés, and largely ironic ones at
Nearly a decade ago, on Nine-Eleven, people
still gasp (as I do) at the selfless bravery of
Todd Beamer and his fellow (male) passengers on United Airlines
Flight 92 who, at the certain cost of their own lives, attacked the
hijackers and forced the plane to crash-land in a field instead of
on the White House.
We gasp because the behaviour of Mr Beamer and
his co-heroes has become so uncharacteristic of 21st century male
behaviour in the West.
Yet sixty years ago, deeds such as those of the
men on the Titanic or Flight 92 would be the expected reaction to
the ghastly circumstances in which those males inadvertently found
themselves. Manliness was the universal norm.
My aged father (b 1915) relates in his
memoirs how corporal punishment
was administered in
his London school. The boy would be asked whether he accepted
the beating and if he answered yes, the headmaster administered the
stinging strokes of the cane. In the very rare instance of a
refusal the miscreant would be spared, but he would thereafter be
regarded with disdain by teachers and fellow-students alike.
In those days, manliness began in boyhood.
Back to beginning
picture a scene. On a small idyllic wooded island of barely
500 metres by 200 metres, some six hundred idealistic young men and
women in their late teens and early twenties (plus a few children)
are enjoying a summer camp of activities, discussion and
camaraderie. Suddenly a man in uniform appears and invites a
group of the youngsters to gather round him in order to make an
announcement. Then he pulls out two guns and starts shooting
Let's imagine two versions of what happens
next, first in 1950, then in 2011.
1950 Version (and earlier):
As soon as
the first people fall to the ground, the remaining men rush at the
gunman to overpower him. If he escapes to the woods and keeps
shooting, the young men pursue him spreading out, taking cover in
the trees, hurling rocks at the gunman. Other men not part of
the original target audience join in the hunt. A few are shot;
the rest persevere. Everyone makes sure the young women and
children are safely out of the way. When the gunman has to
stop and reload, whoever is closest pounces on him. The men
beat him to a pulp and tie him up. Maybe they
shoot him with his own gun.
the medics arrive and tend to the casualties. The police
arrive and arrest (or body-bag) the gunman, commiserate over the
deaths, and then congratulate everyone else. No-one
comments on their manliness - it's just taken for granted.
As soon as
the shooting starts, those who are not hit flee from the scene.
The gunman pursues them at walking pace, shooting any that he spots.
From time to time he stops to reload. Some of the young people
hide in the woods, some try to swim to the mainland, every man/woman
for him/herself. For eighty minutes, the gunman continues
following and shooting the men and women, including several in the
water swimming for their lives and others at waters' edge. He
delivers a coup-de-grâce
on many of the fallen just to make sure they are dead.
Only when the
police arrive does the gunman cease the carnage, as he meekly allows
himself to be arrested. His father regrets his son didn't kill
himself. In all
69 out of the six hundred are shot dead or drowned and several
more are left wounded.
outpouring of national grief ensues (rather than rage) and
politicians make inane comments about
“how much love we together can create”.
Of course the second version is what actually
happened on Utøya
on that fearsome 22nd
day of July. At least twelve of the victims are shown below,
in happy mode sitting in the sun with their colleagues just the day
before, oblivious to the dreadful fate about to befall them.
People of an earlier generation just would not
understand the mass panic that enabled one man with a couple of guns
and a bag of ammunition to stroll around the island shooting and
occasionally reloading, while six hundred fit young people, half of
them presumably male, simply ran away in terror.
Back to beginning
But that's what happens when men throughout
their upbringing have been imbued with such a sense of peace and
love and friendship and caution and reaching-out at all costs, that
they believe -
that feelings and emotions are as important as
facts (or more so),
that all danger and all risk must be avoided at
that men must never ever use violence or even
learn how to,
that when confronted with violence or danger
retreat is the only response,
that men have no inherent duty to protect
that they have no sense of either civic
responsibility or personal pride.
Their instinctive manliness has been driven
out, to be replaced by feminisation. This, unfortunately, is
an observation that Breivik also makes several times in his
manifesto. No doubt the belief that the hundreds of youth on
the island would all have been too feminised to counter-attack
helped encourage him in his evil deeds.
Back to beginning
however, the peaceableness of those
young people had a let-out, for they were virulently anti-Israel
pro-Palestinian. Thus, while staying safely in Norway far away
from the explosive Middle East, the AUF
not universally anti-violence, only anti unapproved
violence. They and the parent Labour party
support Palestinian militancy, and on Utøya
played anti-Israel games, such as
“break the blockade” and “boycott Israel”.
fifteen years, representatives of Fatah
youth wing of its parent, Fatah)
the AUF's annual youth camp on Utøya, joining in the
“learning and sharing experiences on democracy and
advocacy for peace and justice”.
Though no longer officially designated as a terrorist group, Fatah
nevertheless remains committed to what it calls
struggle” against Israel. Fatah Youth itself only last
year organized a popular inauguration of a public square in the West
Bank town of el-Bireh, which was named after
Dalal Mughrabi. This beautiful young Fatah terrorist was
killed while hijacking a bus in Israel in 1978, resulting in the
murder of 37 innocent Israelis.
adult Fatah organization is also parent to its armed wing,
the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. This is
the Islamic terrorist group which proudly
claims responsibility for the brutal
murder of the Fogel Family while they slept and the virtual
decapitation of baby Hadas.
statement about the Utøya murders included this: “Fatah Youth
presents its condolences to the families of those killed and sends a
strong message of support to our comrades from the Norwegian AUF as well
as from other sister parties that were participating in this summer camp.”
They know their friends.
So the AUF's and the Labour party's aversion to
violence is in fact a hypocritical sham. They support it against
Israel, they just don't know how to do it themselves, nor want to.
Conclusions and Lessons
Back to beginning
So here are my conclusion and things to be
learnt, some of them uncomfortable:
Breivik's actions were unutterably evil,
abominable. In any sane society he would be looking at
imminent execution rather than years in a comfortable Norwegian jail
with all mod-con s and a sensitive rehabilitation programme.
His right-leaning objectives, however, whether
or not you agree with them, are largely respectable, if not
honourable - see the shopping list at the beginning of this post.
But Breivik has ensured that those who
share them will now for a long time be demonised whenever they
This must be countered by persistently
presenting their underlying logic (I have
elsewhere how the ideas of the right always makes more sense
than of the left).
Utøya must not be allowed to become an
excuse for constraining free speech.
We must be sceptical about groups that proclaim
their anti-violence or anti-war credentials; for many these worthy
sentiments are set aside where approved enemies are concerned,
usually Israel. Indeed attitudes towards Israel are a useful
In particular, Norway, widely acknowledged as
one of the most
anti-Semitic countries in Europe, is ruled by a party (Labour)
that preaches non-violence, while with breathtaking double-think it
has long consorted with Fatah whose militant wing is devoted to
violence against Israel. These two phenomena are not
The overall reaction during and after the
events in Norway have made such attacks in the future more not less
Calls for the curtailment of free speech in the
light of the Norwegian atrocities are irrational, ultimately
dangerous (because they encourage other more belligerent outlets)
and must be resisted.
Above all, excessive feminisation (in other
countries as well as Norway) of young males - meaning
- is an attributes that ultimately leads to the
opposite of what is intended, namely more not less violence and more not
fewer innocent casualties.
Back to beginning
Back to List of Contents
Comments to Cyberspace
Why is Vatican so miffed at reaction to Cloyne report?
Online comment to an Irish Times article
You are dishonest, Mr McGarry. You allege that Cardinal Castrillon
Hoyos, who was responsible for the 1997 letter to the Irish bishops,
dismissed their 1996 Framework Document as “merely a study document”.
Had you bothered to actually read that 1997 Vatican letter you would
have learnt that ...
Vatican did not try to obstruct abuse inquiry
Online comments an Irish Times article
It's worth reading the
Vatican's actual 1997 letter which Mr
Kenny disparages, not least for its gobbledook nature. Somebody should really teach those Vatican guys to write
proper, simple English. Their convoluted phraseology ...
Tackle Shatter on male circumcision P!
Letter in the Irish Independent on 21st July
Kevin Myers points out that a Jewish Minister for Justice may
introduce a state law governing private Catholic sacramental practices
such as the seal of the Catholic confessional, and contrasts this with
Rabbinical circumcision ...
Letter published by the Sunday Times (subscription only) on 17th July
Brenda Powers refers to the book
Let Me Go”
by Kazuo Ishiguro and says that
“in his world, human
clones are crops to be harvested for their organs”.
Powers goes on to say that this is
Would that it were ...
Palestinian push for state status
Letter to the Irish Times
The alphabetically endowed Brian Dineen BCL (Int) III asks "Must
history repeat the same mistakes? The best solution to the current
impasse is the recognition of a provisional border along 1967 lines".
Actually, the best solution is for the Palestinians simply to recognize
Letter to the Irish Times
Columnist Kevin Cullen of the Boston Globe begins his piece by telling
us that he used to work for Rupert Murdoch, then follows with an
entertaining 800-word anti-Murdoch harangue laden with hysterical
epithets. Murdoch’s output is variously described as a “sickening
stench”, “sleaze” ...
Back to List of Contents
- - - - - O B A M A - - - - -
“Eric, don't make me call my bluff.”
President Obama to Eric Cantor, the US
Congress's House Majority Leader,
over negotiations to raise (or not) America's debt ceiling of $1.3
which without action will be breached in August.
What is Obama talking about?
The whole point of a bluff is that
you hide that you are bluffing.
You don't announce you are bluffing and then
invite your opponent to force you to expose your own bluff.
Where is the Obama teleprompter when he needs it!
“The nation [risks] losing its
sterling credit rating not because we [don't] have the
capacity to pay our bills, we do, but because we don’t have a triple
A political system to match it”.
More balderdash from President Obama, in a
America doesn't have capacity to
pay its bills.
That's the very reason Obama has wanted to raise its debt ceiling.
“The fact that we are here today to debate
raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is
a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a
sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign
countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies …
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and
internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto
the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Then senator, Barack Obama, on 16th March 2006
Who knew he possessed such wisdom so long ago?
Then, he was trying to dissuade Congress
from raising the US debt ceiling above
In 2011 he wanted (and succeeded) to jack it up a few trillion over $14 trn.
You couldn't make it up.
- - - - - I S R A E L - - - - -
“Israel ... is a place where
women enjoy equality;
the LGBT community flourishes;
the media is unfettered and critical;
an independent judiciary protects the powerless from the powerful;
where trade unions are well-organised and strong;
educational excellence and scientific innovation are pursued;
religious minorities are free to practise their creeds;
a welfare state supports the poor and marginalised;
and, yes, it is a fully functioning, vibrant, participatory democracy.”
David Cairns, a British Labour MP,
in a speech which undoubtedly astonished and dismayed
his fellow, instinctively anti-Semitic, Labourites
- - - - - I R E L A N D - - - - -
Quote: “Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and
betrayal with St Benedict’s ‘ear of the heart’, the Vatican’s
reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a canon
lawyer. This calculated, withering position being the polar opposite
of the radicalism, humility and compassion upon which the Roman
Church was founded ... the Cloyne report excavates the dysfunction,
disconnection, elitism, the narcissism that dominate the culture of
the Vatican to this day.”
Enda Kenny, Ireland's Taoiseach (prime
uses colourful hyperbole to excoriate the Vatican for
not doing more to protect Irish children from abuse by Irish
As a point of perspective, over the past decade
nearly two hundred children were allowed to die
whilst they were
under the care and protection of the Irish State,
more than half of them due to a “combination of unnatural causes”
- - - - - G L O B A L
W A R M - M O N G E R I N G - - - - -
Quote: “NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011
show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released
into space than alarmist computer models have predicted … the study
indicates far less future global warming will occur than United
Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies
indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less
heat than alarmists have claimed.”
James Taylor of Forbes, drawing from
an article by the University of Alabama
in the peer-reviewed science journal
blows yet another hole in the global warm-mongerers' scam.
- - - - - M E D I A - - - - -
“This is the most humble day of my life.”
Rupert Murdoch, confronted in his dotage
by a hostile parliamentary committee
investigating criminal phone-hacking by his newspapers,
looks back on his eighty years
Back to List of Contents
Quote VDH: June 18, 2010, Obama’s Gulf
War III, by Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media
should fast-track nuclear power to produce clean electricity to fuel
a new generation of hybrid engines and electric motors; and we also
should fast-track natural gas distribution to capitalize on new
natural gas finds to power trucks, tractors, and large engines not
suitable for hybridization with present technology; and we should
exploit oil as a transition fuel wherever it can be more safely
recovered (e.g., ANWR) without going 5,000 feet to get it.”
VDH has the right idea on long-term energy
Use the present to prepare for the future.