Anders Behring Brevik's online following and the way forward.

[Furunculus]

In the context of Louis' statement:

And secondly, they question whether this will not have a backlash against the hardright, which had been winning elections everywhere the past two years and was in the process of being accepted as mainstream.

with an element of the (poorly specified) right becoming mainstream in european politics, i took him to mean the populist right which does not include the likes BNP, but instead those winning elections all over europe, those struggling for recognition as a mainstream political movement, and those who will find their anti-immigration stance vulnerable to the events in norway.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...758883,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757982,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...770045,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...737676,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...772875,00.html
www.demos.co.uk/files/File/prospectarticle1.pdf

[Kagemusha]

To me this is kind of crap that will happen and keep happening as long as there will be humans. There are always nutters who are ready to support or copycat other nutters. Should we loose our sleep over the fact that some cold blooded idiot with agenda might kill you or your loved ones? No. We eventually all die and only few of us can actually decide when, how or why. Living is hard enough. Worrying about death is useless waste of time.

[Hax]

As much as I hate to say it, I may actually kind of agree with Fragony. Look at what's happened here. It makes me want to cry, to be honest. These acts of violence are inexcusable and I hope that the perpetrator realises to full extent how horrific his actions were.

However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.

I fear that several subjects have become indiscussable in our democratic societies after World War II. These subjects include eugenics, population control, state-sanctioned discrimination and problems with immigration. I do not think the fall of the Berlin wall had anything to do with it. We have suffered from a collective guilt complex after the horrors of World War II, and for a good reason, because many of our states (in)directly supported the nazis, of which many people here are aware and I don't have to explain. It's good that we have decided that such horrible events should never take place again, but at what cost?

Perhaps if the extreme right wing had not been alienated, but rather had been fought at on their own terms, such a situation could've been avoided. Perhaps. And even then, is it really worth the risk? I'm not sure.

those finnish fellows, as well as Geerts bunch are likewise populist, and thus fail to conform with political orthodoxy, but they are not extreme in a manner that would justify the label hard-right.

National-socialism isn't really something traditionally associated with the right wing either. Economic conservatism and social conservatism should obviously be seperated. Additionally, the term "nazi" has quite devaluated from its original meaning. It's something of a nonsensical word nowadays, merely something to be thrown at a political enemy when all other options have run dry. In any case, Wilders' case is quite different, as his continuous, and in my opinion, quite mindless, support of Israel isn't really nationalistic in nature. Nor will it find much support with the traditionally anti-semitic (again, a word that has been devaluated) rhetoric of the extreme right wing, who (strangely) support the Arab-Muslim struggle against the Israelis. Something with "the enemy of my enemy".

[Furunculus]

As much as I hate to say it, I may actually kind of agree with Fragony. Look at what's happened here. It makes me want to cry, to be honest. These acts of violence are inexcusable and I hope that the perpetrator realises to full extent how horrific his actions were.

However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.

I fear that several subjects have become indiscussable in our democratic societies after World War II. These subjects include eugenics, population control, state-sanctioned discrimination and problems with immigration. I do not think the fall of the Berlin wall had anything to do with it. We have suffered from a collective guilt complex after the horrors of World War II, and for a good reason, because many of our states (in)directly supported the nazis, of which many people here are aware and I don't have to explain. It's good that we have decided that such horrible events should never take place again, but at what cost?

Perhaps if the extreme right wing had not been alienated, but rather had been fought at on their own terms, such a situation could've been avoided. Perhaps. And even then, is it really worth the risk? I'm not sure.

National-socialism isn't really something traditionally associated with the right wing either. Economic conservatism and social conservatism should obviously be seperated. Additionally, the term "nazi" has quite devaluated from its original meaning. It's something of a nonsensical word nowadays, merely something to be thrown at a political enemy when all other options have run dry. In any case, Wilders' case is quite different, as his continuous, and in my opinion, quite mindless, support of Israel isn't really nationalistic in nature. Nor will it find much support with the traditionally anti-semitic (again, a word that has been devaluated) rhetoric of the extreme right wing, who (strangely) support the Arab-Muslim struggle against the Israelis. Something with "the enemy of my enemy".

Thoroughly excellent post Hax, I am very much agreed, and seem to remember trying to advance a similar argument vis-a-vis the BNP in british politics.

Never back a wild animal into a corner, there seems to be a lesson in there somewhere for the healthy governance of a representative democracy.

[Fragony]

Thoroughly excellent post Hax, I am very much agreed, and seem to remember trying to advance a similar argument vis-a-vis the BNP in british politics.

Never back a wild animal into a corner, there seems to be a lesson in there somewhere for the healthy governance of a representative democracy.

I dare saying that if Norway had a Geert Wilders who's rethoric goes too far even for me, this probably wouldn't have happened. The idiotic head of the labour party here seems to persist in the old way though, it wasn't enough for him that Wilders distantiated himself, the implication is obvious. Glad to say that most show the same dignity Norway has (which can't be praised enough), save a few collumnists nobody takes seriously

[Furunculus]

Don't worry folks, the EU is on the case:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...776985,00.html

European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström - "I have many times expressed my concern over xenophobic parties who build their unfortunately quite successful rhetoric on negative opinions on Islam and other so-called threats against society," she wrote. "This creates a very negative environment, and sadly there are too few leaders today who stand up for diversity and for the importance of having open, democratic and tolerant societies where everybody is welcome."

Define the "everyone" who is to be welcome:
a) Everyone who lives in the society?
b) Everyone who lives in the society, as well as those who come to live in that society from outside?
c) Everyone, as in quite literally; anyone and everyone who should have a desire to live in that society?

Perhaps if there was a clearer understanding and acceptance as to what is an appropriate level of immigration then people might not let fear of the third option (c) colour their judgement over the very principle and merits of immigration itself.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As much as I hate to say it, I may actually kind of agree with Fragony. Look at what's happened here. It makes me want to cry, to be honest. These acts of violence are inexcusable and I hope that the perpetrator realises to full extent how horrific his actions were.

However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.

I fear that several subjects have become indiscussable in our democratic societies after World War II. These subjects include eugenics, population control, state-sanctioned discrimination and problems with immigration. I do not think the fall of the Berlin wall had anything to do with it. We have suffered from a collective guilt complex after the horrors of World War II, and for a good reason, because many of our states (in)directly supported the nazis, of which many people here are aware and I don't have to explain. It's good that we have decided that such horrible events should never take place again, but at what cost?

Perhaps if the extreme right wing had not been alienated, but rather had been fought at on their own terms, such a situation could've been avoided. Perhaps. And even then, is it really worth the risk? I'm not sure.

An excellent post, which unfortunately overlooks two things:

Those PC taboos are taboos of old. They are already ancient, of a previous era. There is no silence. There is no silencing of hardright proponents. Far from it. Immigration, the failure of the multicultural society are not taboos, they completely dominate European debate. So much so, that one could rather speak of an obsession. Every frontpage of every European newspaper, every internet forum, is all about Muslims, immigration, resurgent nationalist reflexes.

Secondly, Norway's hardright isn't marginalised at all. As everywhere else, it has been winning elections, is now Norway's second largest party, has governed Norway by propping up a rightwing coalition.


It is in this atmosphere of broken taboos, of the hardright's meteoric rise to power, that this terror attack took place. Not in an atmosphere of repression. Although the perception of the terrorist itslef might have been one of repression, and his frustrations based on his thinking Europe is not turning hardright.

[Furunculus]

Secondly, Norway's hardright isn't marginalised at all. As everywhere else, it has been winning elections, is now Norway's second largest party, has governed Norway by propping up a rightwing coalition.

I take it by "hardright" we are using your definition as previously given; "fascist, extreme right."

So the progress party, which according to wiki has the following platform:

"Founded by Anders Lange in 1973 largely as an anti-tax movement, the party highly values individual rights and supports the downsizing of bureaucracy and increased market economy,[8] although it also supports an increased use of the uniquely Norwegian Oil Fund to invest in infrastructure.[9] The party in addition seeks a more restrictive immigration policy and tougher integration and law and order measures."

Is now to be branded fascist and extreme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_(Norway)

i feel like i must reiterate my previous call:

can we make a distinction between the extremists and non-conformists of the right please?

ukip have been winning seats, but they are populist-right.
the bnp is arguably hard-right and they have been losing seats.

those finnish fellows, as well as Geerts bunch are likewise populist, and thus fail to conform with political orthodoxy, but they are not extreme in a manner that would justify the label hard-right.

[Fragony]

'It is in this atmosphere of broken taboos, of the hardright's meteoric rise to power, that this terror attack took place. Not in an atmosphere of repression'

It only looks like that, in reality what you call the hard-right is still teethless, it will take at least 20 years to get the babyboomer generation from the (unelected) key positions. Harsh words in parlement mean nothing

[Louis VI the Fat]

In the context of Louis' statement:


with an element of the (poorly specified) right becoming mainstream in european politics, i took him to mean the populist right which does not include the likes BNP, but instead those winning elections all over europe, those struggling for recognition as a mainstream political movement, and those who will find their anti-immigration stance vulnerable to the events in norway.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...758883,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757982,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...770045,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...737676,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...772875,00.html
www.demos.co.uk/files/File/prospectarticle1.pdf

I mean the fascist, extreme right.

There is a dilution of the term, of the political current, coming from two directions. One, succesful hardright parties have developed a 'fascism with a human face'. A kind of fascism-lite. Spearheaded by clean-cut poster boys. Or girls. Not the basement=dwelling troglodytes with nazi-tattoos of old, but smart, clean, rhetorically gifted career politicians. Sometimes, one does wonder where form follows content, where fascism turns into social-fascism, the way socialism and reactionarism have been tamed into social-democracy and Christian-democracy.
Two, European mainstream is becoming de-sensitivied towards hardright issues. Things are now said openly, even by non-hardright parties, which were considered 'incitement to hatred' fifteen years ago.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think most people here on this forum are smart enough to realise that the idea of a clean-cut left-right spectrum is not in fact very helpful, and is the cause of much pointless debating on the definitions of terms, as well as a convenient source for attacking people through the 'guilt by association' route.

Mr. Brevik has been labelled frequently as being "extreme right". And in the post above, Louis calls the fascists "extreme right". And yet, Mr. Brevik was not by any stretch of the imagination a fascist, or a neo-Nazi for that matter.

Brevik was of the vienna school of thought, he championed laissez-faire economics, not the corporatism/national socialism of the fascist movements. In fact its clearly the opposite. He wasn't less or more extreme than the fascists in this respect, he was something completely different (got to emphasise that).

He certainly wasn't a neo-Nazi. He was banned from Stormfront for not being anti-semitic enough. The alliance between the NSDAP fanboys and those that focus on immigration as a more contemporary issue was always going to be an uneasy one. It's about the Muslims now and not the Jews, but some people just can't let go. This leads to weirdness when the far-left jumps into bed with radical Islamists and has them doing Nazi salutes towards Jewish protesters at their rallies. I always found the ways these particular issues got conflated into grander ideologies to be interesting.

tbh the only thing we can say that the so called "far-right" has in common is that they don't like immigrants. But this is just one issue and doesn't justify any sort of attempt at creating a single left-right spectrum when there are so many dimensions to things. When the BNP are placed to the left of Labour on the economy, you start to realise just how meaningless and unhelpful a single spectrum is (I believe this is what PVC was getting at when he called the Nazi's left wing and Adrian thought he was trolling him).

And as Louis pointed out, even just using the issue of immigration for left-right divides is unhelpful, since the centre-right has always supported immigration for economic reasons, and of late the centre-left supported it for cultural reasons.

So maybe we need to stop labelling so much.

[Fragony]

' However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.'

Such reflections will turn out to be too much to ask for I'm afraid. While the usual suspects have been remarkably quiet, the Norway shootings are a powerful political weapon to sabotage debate. Argument of doom 'that's what he also said', opportunists like Alexander the Great and C-c-c-ohen are low enough to do that

[Furunculus]

I mean the fascist, extreme right.

There is a dilution of the term, of the political current, coming from two directions. One, succesful hardright parties have developed a 'fascism with a human face'. A kind of fascism-lite. Spearheaded by clean-cut poster boys. Or girls. Not the basement=dwelling troglodytes with nazi-tattoos of old, but smart, clean, rhetorically gifted career politicians. Sometimes, one does wonder where form follows content, where fascism turns into social-fascism, the way socialism and reactionarism have been tamed into social-democracy and Christian-democracy.
Two, European mainstream is becoming de-sensitivied towards hardright issues. Things are now said openly, even by non-hardright parties, which were considered 'incitement to hatred' fifteen years ago.

fair enough, but i believe the populist right is a far more significant force, now and in the future, for european politics.

re ther european mainstream is becoming de-sensitivied towards [[hard]]right issues - this to me is all part of the normal tangent away from socialism that has been happening for nearly a generation now, and will continue to occur for another generation, until there is no real difference between what people claim to be social-liberalism and social-democracy.