Brit Dee,
The
trial of Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik has today
entered its second week, with many interesting but chilling details
having been revealed about the bombing in Oslo and subsequent shootings
on the island of Utøya.
Perhaps most interestingly of all, Breivik has provided a clear explanation of exactly what he hoped to achieve through his acts of terrorism. Immediately after the attack, some commentators speculated that the tragedy would be exploited by the political elite, to demonise moderate nationalists - "patriots" who reject mass immigration and the erosion of national culture - and to stifle debates on such issues. This, it seems, is exactly what Breivik hoped for. During the third day of his trial, The Guardian reported how Breivik insisted that his goal (in the short to medium term) was to make pariahs of Europe's nationalists – the very people with whom you might expect him to feel kinship. "I thought I had to provoke a witchhunt of modern moderately conservative nationalists," he said. Then he claimed that this curious strategy had already borne fruit, citing the example of Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who he said had given a speech since the attacks saying that critics of immigration were wrong. The effect of this "witchhunt", said Breivik, would be to increase "censorship" of moderately nationalist views, which would "increase polarisation". The effect of this, he said, would eventually lead to "more radicalisation as more will lose hope and lose faith in democracy". Ultimately, he said, these new radicals would join the war he has started to protect the "indigenous people" of Norway and western Europe.
Whilst Jens Stoltenberg's speech may
give the impression that Breivik's strategy is indeed going to plan,
other evidence suggests that nationalist parties and policies have not
suffered at all in the wake of the Norwegian terror attacks. Last week Geert
Wilder's fervently anti-Islam Freedom Party, the third largest party in
the Netherlands, brought down the Dutch coalition government after
withdrawing its support for EU-imposed budget cuts. In France, Marine Le
Pen's equally strongly anti-Islam National Front won a record 18
percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections. Le Pen
claims to be fighting the "Islamisation" of France, a position for
which there is evidently considerable support, particularly in the
aftermath of Mohamed Merah's "Al Qaeda" shootings in Toulouse last month
(the fact that Merah was likely an asset being handled by the French authorities of course being rarely mentioned).
Indeed,
the far-right appears to be in the ascendancy, and even courted by the
mainstream. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, knowing that he will have
to attract National Front votes if he stands any chance of re-election, said after the first round that
NF voters "must be respected", as their votes were "a vote of
suffering, a crisis vote". Comments bluntly critical of Islam,
previously the preserve of the far-right, have also been made by leading
mainstream politicians in other European countries. Last week the
leader of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats in parliament, Volker
Kauder, described Islam as
"not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not
belong in Germany", though he was careful to add "But Muslims do belong
in Germany. As state citizens, of course, they enjoy their full rights."
Whilst
Breivik's purported plan to spark a demonisation of nationalists does
not appear to be working, or even necessary, his attacks are certainly
feeding into the general tension currently building between those of
different political parties and faiths; society is indeed becoming
polarised. This may be the natural result of a failed experiment in
multiculturalism, the effects of deliberate conspiracies echoing those
such as Operation Gladio, or the "strategy of tension",
or a combination of the two. No matter who or what is behind the
current ratcheting up of tension, a political, religious and racial
tension inextricably linked to the collapsing economies and
deteriorating living standards of Europe, the ultimate beneficiaries are
clear - the shadowy criminal elite who profit from such "systemic
destabilisation" and who Peter Dale Scott characterises as the "overworld".
It
must be pointed out that Zionist supporters of Israel are one of the
beneficiaries of the tensions currently being played out in Europe.
Indeed, the newfound alliance between staunchly pro-Israeli Zionists and
ultranational anti-Islamists, is one of the most intriguing aspects of
today's political scene.
The
extreme right has traditionally been seen, often with good cause, as
anti-Semitic - and yet now we see many examples of the anti-Islamic
far-right openly embracing Zionism and Zionists. Anders Breivik was
himself an avowed Zionist, his 1515-page manifesto containing multiple references
to his firm belief that Israel is an ally which must be strongly
defended by nationalists at all costs. Breivik was also of course an
avid follower of such anti-Islamic, pro-Zionist writers as the American
blogger Pamela Geller.
The Dutch politician Geert Wilders, mentioned earlier, is also a staunch supporter of Israel, having reportedly lived in the country for two years during his youth, and visited 40 times in the last 25 years. His Freedom Party allegedly receives financing from supporters of Israel in the US. The English Defence League, to whom some have linked Breivik, openly state
their support of Israel, sometimes appearing at demonstrations waving
the Star of David flag. The EDL has a Jewish Division, run by the
Zionist Roberta Moore, who recently expressed her support for Breivik's murders and claimed that his teenage victims were "not innocent". In France, Le Pen's National Front has also reportedly won support recently, from a previously hostile Jewish community.
We are obviously living in dangerous times and, with the economy
collapsing, widespread social tension increasing, peculiar alliances
forming, and Muslims seemingly being scapegoated in a role previously
allocated to Jews, drawing parallels between today's political climate and that of the 1930s, is unfortunately unavoidable.
1 Comments