Shooting the messenger and perverting the message
In light of the recent frenzied media reports concerning the release of Anders Behring Breivik’s ideologically charged treatise and the subsequent bombing and shooting spree in Norway, I think we need to take stock for a moment. I think it is critically important that we examine and balance carefully what has been said, against what has been done on both sides.
Brevik explicitly articulates the case against a leftist leaning Higher Education establishment, whose great sin of ‘marxist-deconstructionist’ political correctness has poisoned higher education and media establishment’s in the West for a long time. He points out correctly that:
The techniques of political correctness are now well known: attacks on the curriculum in the name of “multiculturalism,” the imposition of restrictive and vaguely-worded “speech codes,” and mandatory “sensitivity training” courses for juniors that are little more than systematic efforts at ideological indoctrination. [1]
This sensitivity based indoctrination is hinged on the idea that the West can be ‘desconstructed’ by the application of the Marxist leaning ‘Frankfurt’ School of thought. In his treatise Brevik forensically establishes Adorno, Bottomore, Wiggershaus, Minnicino, Marcuse, Lukacs and Fromm among others as the leading lights of the Frankfurt School that shaped the formulation of the ‘New Left’. Brevik’s central argument is the establishment of a connection between Critical Theory and the New Left, through works like ‘Authoritarian Personality’, ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’ and the garbled ’Reflections from a Damaged Life’, all clearly relevant in the political and philisophical sense.
It is here that we find Brevik synthesizing what he states himself as a complex work:
Written during World War II largely in response to Nazism [1]
He touches on other works like ‘Escape from Freedom’ and ‘Eclipse of Reason’ that highlight this intellectual arc. He does this through the sliding kaleidoscope of flowery ‘New Age’ Critical Theory. However there is a wider point to be made. Behind the barbarous evil of Brevik’s actions is the fact that Brevik is essentially trying to build a case that the Islamic World and the Marxist-Frankfurt deconstruction of Judeo-Christian civilization is inextricably linked to an indirect and direct partnership through intellectual ‘War’ against the West.
It is a partnership that he imputes exists between the Frankfurt School Institutions and the Islamic world at the secular, intellectual, financial, political and religious level. It is this contention that Brevik uses throughout the rest of his treatise in an attempt to establish the idea that this partnership is indeed working towards the poisoning and eventual demise of the West.
Overlaid within this is a very detailed examination of Christian ‘Crusade History’ and the Islamic ’Jihad History’ as a means of backing up the aforementioned points. Brevik states concisely that the Christian Crusade’s were a defensive project, whilst the Islamic Jihad was and remains an offensive one. This next point is key. He goes onto quote Bernard Lewis in ‘Islam and the West’ who states that:
We live in a time when great efforts have been made, and continue to be made, to falsify the record of the past and to make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was. All this is very dangerous indeed, to ourselves and to others, however we may define otherness — dangerous to our common humanity. Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future. [1]
Brevik expands on this by stating:
Since the creation of Islam in the 7th century and to up to this day, the Islamic Jihad has systematically killed more than 300 million non Muslims and tortured and enslaved more than 500 million individuals. Since 9/11 2001, more than 12 000 Jihadi terrorist attacks have occurred around the world which have led to the death of one or more non-Muslims per attack. In other words; there are around 150 deadly Jihadi attacks per month around the world. This trend will continue as long as there are non-Muslim targets available and as long as Islam continues to exist. [1]
He goes further and provocatively quotes Tina Magaard:
In Denmark, linguist Tina Magaard concludes that Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far greater degree than the original texts of other religions. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror … This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact we need to deal with.” [2]
In dealing with the systemic complexity that exists between the contended Islamic-Marxist partnership and the reaction and defensive position of the West, the question has to be asked. Does Brevik attempt to establish further where the war-like posture of Islam exists within this framework of social, political and religious battle? This is an important question because it runs parallel to the ongoing question of the West’s continued international military interventions and its continued support of Israel. Aligned to this is the perception that the Islamic world sees these Western interventions as a major factor in the stalled peace project in the Middle East and wider Arab world.
Brevik addresses this by quoting among others the following Quranic texts:
The Quran occupies a place that has no parallel in Western civilisation. The Quran is considered by Muslims and by traditional Islamic theology to be dictated word for word by Allah himself through the Angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. Sura 98 Verse 6 [1].
Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and the prophet Muhammad) from among the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Musrhikun (other disbelievers) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are he worst of creatures. Sura 9 Verse 29 [1].
Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger. … and fight against those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e., Islam) among the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah (Tax for Jews/Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Sura 9 Verse 111 [1].
It is from these provocative statements we find the religious end game. Brevik himself recounts this by stating the following:
It is from such warlike pronouncements as these that Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad’s time and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam’s message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered. [1]
Brevik renders the clear notion that the entirety of Western Christendom and it’s liberal democratic civic societies exist within the Islamic mind as ‘The House of War’. It would seem at this point that a back-down on the question of Israel is most morally and politically repugnant.
The most powerful and explicit indictment against Islam lays at the heart of Brevik’s own quotation of [Serge Trifkovic] who states that Islam is a:
“geo political project … a system of government and a political ideology”. [1]
Is there hence a future for peace? Those in the west who believe in Western Judeo-Christianity both at the civic and religious level would certainly want it to be so. However history and human nature tell a disastrously different story. My greatest regret is that Anders Brevik has ignited through violence an important conversation about the War between the West and Islam that goes to the heart of religious and political realities as well as mythology regarding same.
Despite my heightened opposition to the violent acts that Brevik has allegedly perpetrated, the open ended debate regarding the Marxist-Islamic partnership and the role of the West in the current ‘War on Terrorism’ must be addressed anew from both sides. I believe for far too long the issue of ‘Islam’ and ‘Terrorism’ has been seen within a dynamic of Cold War styled constructions that fashion the Islamic side in the old “Soviet” enemy context and the West as the old Western “Allies” protagonist.
Key is the fact that individuals and ‘non-state actor’ groupings are playing a more significant role in this new world we are living in. We need to renew our awareness of this and be prepared to re-frame our pre-conceptions. Ironically and perversely Brevik has attempted to blast apart the ‘Islamic Project’. He has done this by destroying any intellectual credibility his arguments may have had by allegedly stepping straight into the trap of directly emulating the actions that he seeks to lambaste.
The other clear message that emerges from these recent events is a fresh labelling process that has linked Christian Fundamentalism with Brevik. Merv Bendle from Quadrant cogently cites this by stating:
A Google search for ‘Breivik, right-wing’ produces 2.4 million results; ‘Breivik, Christian’, 3.1 million results; and ‘Breivik, fundamentalist’, 950,000 results; while even the omnibus appellation, ‘Breivik, right-wing, Christian, fundamentalist’, scores 503,000. [4]
Clearly the connection of ‘Fundamentalism’ and ‘Christianity’ tarnish the millions who seek peaceful means of resolving conflict. Brevik’s treatise and subsequent alleged actions are a demonstrable case of ‘shooting the messenger and perverting the message’. Ironically he has brought this on himself. This comes at a time when the circumstances demand a measured, considered and consistent response to prevent future violence.
Future terrorism policy configurations and debate must recognize and adapt to these new challenges. Without it the memory of those senselessly killed will be in vain.
Timothy W Humphries is a post-graduate Journalism student at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Reference List
1. Anders Behring Breivik Manifesto 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence By Andrew Berwick. 2011. Anders Behring Breivik Manifesto 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence By Andrew Berwick. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/60849766/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Manifesto-2083-%E2%80%93-A-European-Declaration-of-Independence-By-Andrew-Berwick. [Accessed 01 August 2011].
2. Fjordman: Islam is the most Warlike Religion. 2011. Fjordman: Islam is the most Warlike Religion. [ONLINE] Available at: http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09/islam-is-most-warlikereligion.html. [Accessed 01 August 2011].
3. Quran Explorer . 2011. Quran Explorer . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/[Accessed 01 August 2011].
4. Quadrant Online – The myth of right-wing terrorism. 2011. Quadrant Online – The myth of rightwing terrorism. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2011/08/the-mythof-right-wing-terrorism. [Accessed 02 August 2011].
28 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Catallaxy Files- Will Scott Fitzgerald’s economy meet that of Steinbeck? June 19, 2013This morning I had a piece in The Australian, “Stop splurge now to avoid going from Gatsby to the Grapes of Wrath”. It argued against those arguing that the current economic malaise seen throughout the developed world is about to abate. … Continue reading →Alan Moran
- Do something positive about IR. Join HR. June 19, 2013The HR Nicholls Society is having a membership promotion. The first 30 persons who apply to join the society before 5:00pm Friday June 28 will have their joining fee waived, and receive a 50% discount on the Annual Conference & … Continue reading →Sinclair Davidson
- Why no libertarian countries? June 19, 2013Writing recently for the online news and entertainment website Salon, the American left-wing public commentator Michael Lind asked a question that has left political commentators abuzz. And that question is: ʻwhy are there no libertarian countries?ʼ Specifically, Lind asks ʻif … Continue reading →Julie Novak
- Will Scott Fitzgerald’s economy meet that of Steinbeck? June 19, 2013
- IPA news
- Stop splurge now to avoid going from Gatsby to Grapes of Wrath June 18, 2013The latest data coming out of the US shows an economy lethargically sidestepping towards stagnation. The same debt-loaded...
- US surveillance scandal just the tip of the iceberg June 15, 2013More than a decade after the September 11 attacks, the US is having a debate about its monstrous national security...
- Security more than a matter of trust June 13, 2013Barack Obama could end up doing more for the cause of small government than Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and the Tea Party...
- Stop splurge now to avoid going from Gatsby to Grapes of Wrath June 18, 2013
Oz Political Quiz
Timothy,
Hate to be a grammar nazi but I noticed some spelling and punctuation mistakes.
That said, the Frankfurt School is not “Marxist-leaning.” It is explicitly and openly Marxist. The full name of the Frankfurt School is “the Frankfurt School of Marxist Critical Theory.” The goal of that school was, essentially, to explain why the prophesized Revolution hadn’t happened yet. The Critical Theorists argued that it was the “culture industry” stepping up to replace religion as the opiate of the masses.
This is why the New Left got so into “Cultural Marxism.” They came to the conclusion that they could hijack the means of cultural production and use them to increase revolutionary consciousness in the same way that the Bourgeoise used the means of cultural production to retard revolutionary consciousness.
It should be noted that the postmodernists/Foucauldian types did the same thing for similar reasons, although they are distinct from Marxists and should not be package-dealt together
Why is so much intellectual analysis of pop-culture dominated by the left? Because they pioneered the field. They were the first people to take pop-culture seriously (or at least those elements of pop-culture they thought they could use to promote their values).
Also, Breivik is indeed a Christian and a social conservative (his treatise is highly supportive of “traditional Christian morality” and the like). Now, this doesn’t mean that all nominal Christians are no different to Breivik; to make this argument is a very blatant logical fallacy. But it is NOT an error to point out that Breivik was indeed a conservative Christian that quite clearly believed in imposing his views by force (and yes, there are some Christians that voluntarily practice a conservative morality and have no desire to force others to do so).
Unfortunately, there will inevitably be some people that will dismiss criticisms of ideological multiculturalism by claiming all critics of ideological multiculturalism are no different to Anders Breivik. But this is nothing new; intellectually dishonest arguments like this are commonplace and I don’t think Breivik will really increase their acceptance by the public.
Punctuation corrections duly noted. On Brevik I think the old saying applies “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.
The message of this piece seems to be that Breivik has the right idea about white Christian supremacism, but shot the wrong people too early, and we should admire his manifesto for its content but ignore the fundamental enthusiasm for violence behind it.
Quoting Merv Bendle was a nice touch. That’s the same Quadrant piece in which he suggests Breivik is an operative of the left, duped into a false-flag opertion to further the cause of multiculturalism.
Perhaps the old saying should be amended to “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and the eternally vigilant are prone to florid conspiracy fantasies”.
Some positive news about guns and self-defence- there seems to have been a shoot-out in North Adelaide last night! A gunman came in and shot at three people at a table in a restaurant there, but was then wounded when another person, an armed citizen, shot at him. The police are now looking for the original shooter- and, so far, they have not arrested the armed citizen! What’s going on? Why aren’t they all as disarmed as everyone else?
The “armed citizen” was another bikey. That’s why they were shooting at each other.
Yes, later reports did call them both bikies- so how come bikies are allowed guns? Why aren’t police chasing both parties involved? And isn’t this still a lesson for us all- that armed citizens are better at repelling crime than distant police?
Well, police reports call them that because that’s what they are. Some men with guns didn’t just happen to start shooting at a random stranger who, by some incredible chance, also happened to be carrying a gun in a nation that not only doesn’t have concealed carry laws, but strictly regulates all firearms.
Why would you think the police aren’t pursuing all the parties? There doesn’t appear to be any reason to think that’s the case.
As for armed self-defence, that argument is stillborn even when applied to gun attacks on genuine innocent bystanders, let alone in the context of a decades-long conflict between bike gangs.
The “armed citizen” is an illegally-armed criminal. You may as well argue that all Australians should be permitted to drive drunk on the footpath, since occasionally two drunk footpath drivers will collide and thus prevent the death of a pedestrian.
You sound like an exceptional libertarian! You’re in favour of liberty, except for this, or that.
As for who the police are looking for, I was just going by the news reports, where the police were only reported as looking for the initial shooter.
I don’t believe in libertarians. They always turn out to be garden-variety conservatives with a utopianist streak.
So, to clarify, your initial argument was that civilian disarmament is unfair because in the tabloid media reporting of a bikie shoot-out, the precise details of who the police were chasing for what wasn’t made explicit, which means that anyone not mentioned must have been let off with no consequences. Is that correct?
No, this was what the police told the media. As for whether the civilians were legally or illegally armed, I don’t know what the laws are in south Australia, so i can’t reply to that. Can anyone else enlighten us?
You say you don’t believe in libertarianism, but is that because you’ve never met anyone who matches your idea of what a libertarian should be, or is the whole direction of libertarian thought (which I think of as heading towards smaller governments and less laws) something that you don’t like?
You’ve raised several points that can be discussed, but the debate process only works if we settle some before moving on to the next lot.
Where did the police tell the media that one of the shooters would be let off Scott-free without any police interference? Apart from being utterly incredible, I can’t see any media report which even implies this, let alone states it.
The initial report said the police were looking for the first shooter. I don’t know if this is because he shot first, or because he was reported to be wounded. There was no mention in the report that the police were looking for two shooters, only the first. Nor have I read anything since to change my initial impression that only the first shooter was of interest to police. If you know differently, tell us now. I am just going by the press releases.
Three men illegally carrying firearms had a gunfight at a suburban cafe, and you find it entirely plausible that the police would take absolutely no interest in two of them?
So how come the other men were not ‘helping the police with their enquiries’? They are only being reported as looking for one man, presumed to be seeking aid for a gunshot wound. The media never mentioned the other people. Do you know differently?
This is stunningly obtuse. Three men had a shootout at a cafe. Do you truly believe the police would let two of them just wander away without any trouble?
You haven’t actually cited the media reports you’re drawing from, but I can’t possibly believe that you would not only take them absolutely literally, but also draw utterly implausible conclusions from them, then turn that into an argument for gun proliferation.
I ask again: do you truly believe the police just let two of the shooters walk away without question?
What I’m advocating here is vigilance against all forms of extremism. Freedom requires it.
A symptom of extremism is the belief that particular extremist ideas are mere common sense, while moderate dissent from them is extremist.
Let’s clarify your post.
1. Do you believe the Islamic world poses an existential threat to the west?
2. Do you believe a deliberate “Marxist-Islamic partnership” exists?
3. Do you beleive that Breivik’s ideas can be isolated from his acts, or is violence the inevitable response to his formulation?
4. I misattributed the Bendle quote. It’s another of his Quadrant pieces, “Explaining Oslo: suspicions & scenarios”, where Bendle asks “was the entire Oslo atrocity a covert, ‘false-flag’ operation[?] In other words, was Behring Breivik actually just a dupe, a sociopath manipulated by forces seeking to discredit the very causes that he believed he was defending?”
Do you share Bendle’s suspicion that Breivik isn’t a product of the right, but a Manchurian Candidate of the left?
5. The penultimate paragraph of the piece is very interesting.
(c) Why do you say Breivik’s actions are only “alleged”?
(d) You object to “the connection of ‘Fundamentalism’ and ‘Christianity’”. Do you believe there are no fundamentalist Christians?
(e) You say that Brievik’s slaughter of young activists was “shooting the messenger”. What message were those youths bringing to Anders Breivik?
Does this software accept HTML in post comments?
I have been away for xmas. Hope you enjoyed your break.
As for the shooting that has you so hot and bothered, I have been waiting for further reports, but have not seen any. I can only go by what I read, and trust the media to not distort the message too much (ninemsm, if you are curious).
Silence speaks volumes.
The far right will remain a joke until it begins to cough up robust ideas that can survive some examination.
I don’t think I’ve met anyone from the far right. And as to your timing, you might not believe in Xmas, but don’t you take holidays? I’m away from my workplace, AND taking an internet break. Probably the others are the same, at this time of year. (I’ve been playing with a Kindle, and forgot all about blogging.)
My post was addressed to Tim Humphries.
In your case, you’re sticking to the view that until the media report otherwise, you’ll believe that the South Australian police sent off two men with a smile and a wave after they had a gunfight at a cafe, therefore Australians should all have free access to firearms.
Let’s just say I don’t think the persuasive rationality of that argument is going to help the libertarian cause much.
Sancho…you sad little whiny bitch…stop trying to whip up some bizarre case where Tim Humphries is guilty of incitement in Norway because he refuses to eat the PC shit sandwich served up by space cadet douche bags such as yourself. Have some respect for the dead you piss ant little ghoul.
Do stop misreporting, sancho. One man was being sought by police, and no mention was made of the other man. And, as a libertarian, I do believe that all Australians should have the right to buy and bear arms. I believed that before this report, and after.
I haven’t misreported anything, Nuke. Your assessment of the police response to a shoot-out in broad daylight has been to take the media reports absolutely literally, and assume that the police will let two of the shooters just walk away. I don’t need to detail how that affects the credibility of your arguments.
Still no response from Humphries. That’s how defensible his piece is.
Still misreporting, I see. And no response to my point about always not being in favour of the government controlling guns and weapons.
As for Humphries, he has probably taken my advice to anyone who replies to Raymonde- “Never argue with an idiot, as onlookers won’t be able to tell the difference.” Goodbye, and GAL.
Nuke, you don’t have to agree with me in order for my argument to win out. By refusing to defend your own statements you demonstrate that you don’t actually believe them.
Likewise, the flaws in Humphries’ arguments are blatant. If he can’t defend them here, at a blog which caters specifically to his ideology, he’s simply signaling that he can do no better than confine himself to an angry corner of the conservative internet and preach to a tiny audience of converts.
Good to see sancho conceding defeat- no mention of my point about how I’ve always been against governments telling us not to own weapons. I would prefer the culture that Britain once had- guns were not outlawed, but people (including your average decent criminal) didn’t feel the need to carry them. And, in case people haven’t decoded GAL, it is my contribution to acronyms. Sancho- Get A Life!