Submitters: We have deep respect for other languages, but this is an English language site so please submit articles in English. It's hard enough to get readers to read the articles even when they are...
“APPROX. 18:30: The son of Trond Berntsen (the security guard and police officer who was among the first to be killed) is standing in the sea on the southern tip when he comes face to face with Breivik. The terrorist shoots and kills five people in front of him. ‘Don’t shoot me!', the boy shouts, doing all he can to demonstrate to the gunman how small he is. Breivik does not shoot the ten year-old. According to the testimony he will later give in court, Breivik decided not to shoot Berntsen because be believes that 'it is wrong to kill children'. When interrogated, Breivik will say that he spared the lives of the smallest children because they were too young to have been 'indoctrinated by the Labour Party”
What kind of messed up mental gymnastics is that? I had no idea this whole rampage was about a political party; That makes it scarier because you can see this happening in any country where the fringes are being radicalized against each other.
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
The fascist that inspired Breivik is still in parliament in NL, and has since then been joined by many (worse) examples.
"Breivik's subtitle is lifted from a 2007 essay by fellow Norwegian blogger "Fjordman". Extensive citations - often plagiarised - also refer to other anti-Muslim ideologues and groups, from the Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Steven Yaxley-Lennon's English Defence League to the likes of Jihadwatch and Stop the Islamisation of Nations (SION). "
Yup, an he was an early (in this cycle) example of the importance of the Paradox of Tolerance.
"A concept advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper which claims that unlimited tolerance necessarily results in the destruction of the tolerant by the intolerant, resulting in a society in which tolerance is no longer possible. Therefore, while paradoxical to the concept of free speech, it is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance. "[1]
In short, in a society of unlimited tolerance, the intolerant will drive out tolerance and take over. In This murderer's example, by simply eliminating those whose views he doesn't like.
1. stop calling it right wing extremism. These guys are mad nationalists, not Ayn Rand (not that I am a fan of Ayn Rand either.)
By calling it by its real name it won't come across as just a variant of conservative or liberal. Because we absolutely detest them and I guess I speak for most of us when I say we don't even want them to vote for us.
2. Encourage serious debate. Dare to meet people.
I wrote about this the other day in the context of climate change:
Climate change believers are awfully fast to reach for the branding iron whenever someone asks an innocent questions.
Meanwhile climate change deniers will patiently smooth talk people and dig out "study" after "study" carefully picked to prove their point.
Same goes for this: the only place you can safely discuss immigration without risking someone sneaking up on you with a red hot "racist" iron is - you probably guessed it - with the racists.
Now why don't we fix this?
Probably because we'd have to admit that there are some serious problems with the way immigration has been practiced.
> The Jerusalem Post describes his support for Israel as a "far-right Zionism". He calls all "nationalists" to join in the struggle against "cultural Marxists/multiculturalists" [1]
Now fear of "cultural Marxists" destroying Europe/US/Christianity etc is mainstream talk in right of center politics.
Ethnonationalism (or at least ethnocentrism) is as old as time, and probably the 'default' mindset. Lack of any other force, especially when combined with the 'nation' part i.e. organized nation state, it might get out of hand, which is why it can come to be a problem, but nominally, it's not. It's probably a defining feature of how we organize ourselves.
So the very existence of most of our nations, is a form of 'Tolerance' of it.
If you look at the borders of Europe and how they flop around over time, it becomes clear that the 'delineating' factor is mostly ethnicity, at least crudely. Sometimes, a political dynasty can force those lines (i.e. Habsburg) but those don't last. What were the chances that Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia etc. were going to stay organized under one House?
Even highly authoritarian ideological secular organizations i.e. USSR failed. Napoleon failed outside his borders whereas within France, it might have just worked for him.
Religious Empires aka Arabic conquest, have some lasting impact but that didn't change borders in any lasting way mostly (although maybe in SE Europe).
Despite a degree of 'multi-culture' in China, the CCP authoritarianism hinges on Han ethnocentricism without which it probably would not hold together.
Where those 'ethnic lines' are drawn poorly, we see trouble.
Belgium is almost a 'failed political state' (literally 100's of days in a row without a government) and the 'division' is 100% because of Flemish/Walloon divide.
Canada has the 'Quebec' factor which has really fundamentally affected things and has a profound effect.
The 'Long Straight Lines in the Desert' in the Middle East were arguably drawn poorly after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and a lot of people tend to point at that as an existential source of instability and why we see problems to this day. Iraq is not a functional state as the Kurds have de-facto independence, and the primary source of instability is the Shia/Sunni divide, unfortunately inflamed by neighbouring parties for their own gain.
The 'New World' aka US, Canada, Australia, Brazil represent something different surely, but even there, it's hard to ignore strong ethnic foundations of the colonizing powers.
Greece is still Greece today after 2500 years, the borders are similar. Also note their 'primary antagonists' i.e. 'Persians' are also something very roughly resembling a state today.
Of course for every 'long lived state' there are 10 that don't exist anymore, but there seems to be resiliency in culture more than anything else.
So I think it's a matter of keeping 'true extremists' (aka not vast government spying and overreach) under wraps as individuals, not so much thinking about specific kinds of movements.
I also believe that these kinds of people would just as easy fall under some other cultural/religious/ideological/extremist umbrella.
I don't think there's much difference between 'XXX extremist' and 'YYY extremist' even if they are ostensibly opposed to one another.
A recent study concluded that Breivik’s influence on right wing terrorism is close to none. But yes, the 22 july attacks is certainly a critical chapter in the overall rise of nationalist movements in the last decade.
On the contrary, I don't see any widespread nazi ideology. I see people open disagree with the left and some of its goals but that is, and I hope you agree, not the same thing.
I don't understand why they mention the terrorist so much in this in memorial, also photos of him in combat gear. The majority of comments here are about him and his deeds; this is exactly the kind of thing these people want, to be remembered. Discussion about motives, political background are warranted but these people really should not be remembered by name or face.
I concur. I have great respect for the PM of New Zealand and the media that subsequently followed who refused to name the shooters in the Christchurch mosque massacre. Also, the Canadian media that refused to name the Nova Scotia shooter.
I remember how most were sure it was an islamistic assault.
In the aftermath the press gave him to much room with pictures of him and citations from his "manifest".
Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him.
Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.
Banning his name and pictures? On what basis? I guess you're not also asking for Stalin and Hitler plus a whole galaxy of mass killers who've massacred their way across the 20th century to join the list of banned killers? Or do they not qualify for banning because they killed orders of magnitude more people than the appalling Breivik?
Should Breivik have killed more to qualify for banning. Yes, a ridiculous suggestion as with the idea of banning mention of him.
And in the news this morning it was called a "drama" or "tragedy", not a "right-wing terrorist attack" as it would have been called if it was done by muslims.
Anyone know what Norway will do when Breivik's 21 year prison sentence [0] is up in 10-12 years? Difficult to imagine him being released back into society.
He was not sentenced to regular prison, but rather detention[1]. The difference being that the former is a punishment and the latter is to protect the public.
While detention must be evaluated at given intervals, it can be extended indefinitely[2].
It doesn't mean that such prisoners are definitely released with 21 years - it can (and likely will) be extended indefinitely for as long as a prisoner remains dangerous to society:
> If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment.
Maybe nothing needs to change -- it appears that this event was a statistical outlier, and making everybody's life worse to prevent low-probability events (e.g., flying after 9/11) is not necessarily a cost that a society is willing to bear.
I can't help but think that if the actual impact of gun violence (and violence in general) was shown in the media, we'd have a lot less of it to deal with...
This was an act planned for years by someone who was sane and seemingly normal. To get the weapons he had, he had to pass a test[1] and apply to the police for approval[2]. He got the approvals as he passed the test and had joined a gun club as is required.
Arguing that ABB using legally purchased guns means gun control doesn't work is pretty much the same as saying burglars will bypass the lock on your door so might as well not have any doors in your home.
As a thought experiment, do you think there would be so many casualities if this island was located in Texas, USA where socialists/labor party is also not very popular?
When ideologies are suppressed, they get pushed to the edges, where there is always some scum of society, who are disaffected and will latch on to it.
The best way is to identify the roots behind what attracts the followers of these ideologies, address any root issues, and attack the premises behind the ideologies itself.
Not talking to these incidents, but all over the world, people tend to violence when they feel that the system does not hear them.
The UX on this page is awful. The text fades in way too slowly and not at all in a useful or aesthetic way. It could win an award for creatively poor UX.
ksaua|4 years ago
dang|4 years ago
Submitters: We have deep respect for other languages, but this is an English language site so please submit articles in English. It's hard enough to get readers to read the articles even when they are...
neither_color|4 years ago
What kind of messed up mental gymnastics is that? I had no idea this whole rampage was about a political party; That makes it scarier because you can see this happening in any country where the fringes are being radicalized against each other.
neonnoodle|4 years ago
jacquesm|4 years ago
"Breivik's subtitle is lifted from a 2007 essay by fellow Norwegian blogger "Fjordman". Extensive citations - often plagiarised - also refer to other anti-Muslim ideologues and groups, from the Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Steven Yaxley-Lennon's English Defence League to the likes of Jihadwatch and Stop the Islamisation of Nations (SION). "
From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19366000
throwaway894345|4 years ago
toss1|4 years ago
"A concept advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper which claims that unlimited tolerance necessarily results in the destruction of the tolerant by the intolerant, resulting in a society in which tolerance is no longer possible. Therefore, while paradoxical to the concept of free speech, it is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance. "[1]
In short, in a society of unlimited tolerance, the intolerant will drive out tolerance and take over. In This murderer's example, by simply eliminating those whose views he doesn't like.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
skinkestek|4 years ago
1. stop calling it right wing extremism. These guys are mad nationalists, not Ayn Rand (not that I am a fan of Ayn Rand either.)
By calling it by its real name it won't come across as just a variant of conservative or liberal. Because we absolutely detest them and I guess I speak for most of us when I say we don't even want them to vote for us.
2. Encourage serious debate. Dare to meet people.
I wrote about this the other day in the context of climate change:
Climate change believers are awfully fast to reach for the branding iron whenever someone asks an innocent questions.
Meanwhile climate change deniers will patiently smooth talk people and dig out "study" after "study" carefully picked to prove their point.
Same goes for this: the only place you can safely discuss immigration without risking someone sneaking up on you with a red hot "racist" iron is - you probably guessed it - with the racists.
Now why don't we fix this?
Probably because we'd have to admit that there are some serious problems with the way immigration has been practiced.
alexmcc81|4 years ago
> The Jerusalem Post describes his support for Israel as a "far-right Zionism". He calls all "nationalists" to join in the struggle against "cultural Marxists/multiculturalists" [1]
Now fear of "cultural Marxists" destroying Europe/US/Christianity etc is mainstream talk in right of center politics.
[1] http://www.jpost.com/International/Norway-attack-suspect-had...
Cthulhu_|4 years ago
cannabis_sam|4 years ago
[deleted]
jollybean|4 years ago
So the very existence of most of our nations, is a form of 'Tolerance' of it.
If you look at the borders of Europe and how they flop around over time, it becomes clear that the 'delineating' factor is mostly ethnicity, at least crudely. Sometimes, a political dynasty can force those lines (i.e. Habsburg) but those don't last. What were the chances that Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia etc. were going to stay organized under one House?
Even highly authoritarian ideological secular organizations i.e. USSR failed. Napoleon failed outside his borders whereas within France, it might have just worked for him.
Religious Empires aka Arabic conquest, have some lasting impact but that didn't change borders in any lasting way mostly (although maybe in SE Europe).
Despite a degree of 'multi-culture' in China, the CCP authoritarianism hinges on Han ethnocentricism without which it probably would not hold together.
Where those 'ethnic lines' are drawn poorly, we see trouble.
Belgium is almost a 'failed political state' (literally 100's of days in a row without a government) and the 'division' is 100% because of Flemish/Walloon divide.
Canada has the 'Quebec' factor which has really fundamentally affected things and has a profound effect.
The 'Long Straight Lines in the Desert' in the Middle East were arguably drawn poorly after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and a lot of people tend to point at that as an existential source of instability and why we see problems to this day. Iraq is not a functional state as the Kurds have de-facto independence, and the primary source of instability is the Shia/Sunni divide, unfortunately inflamed by neighbouring parties for their own gain.
The 'New World' aka US, Canada, Australia, Brazil represent something different surely, but even there, it's hard to ignore strong ethnic foundations of the colonizing powers.
Greece is still Greece today after 2500 years, the borders are similar. Also note their 'primary antagonists' i.e. 'Persians' are also something very roughly resembling a state today.
Of course for every 'long lived state' there are 10 that don't exist anymore, but there seems to be resiliency in culture more than anything else.
So I think it's a matter of keeping 'true extremists' (aka not vast government spying and overreach) under wraps as individuals, not so much thinking about specific kinds of movements.
I also believe that these kinds of people would just as easy fall under some other cultural/religious/ideological/extremist umbrella.
I don't think there's much difference between 'XXX extremist' and 'YYY extremist' even if they are ostensibly opposed to one another.
ale|4 years ago
Link to study: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/cu...
tomjen3|4 years ago
Maphistow|4 years ago
voisin|4 years ago
croes|4 years ago
Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him.
Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.
vixen99|4 years ago
Should Breivik have killed more to qualify for banning. Yes, a ridiculous suggestion as with the idea of banning mention of him.
There is probably even more work to do on Stalin's legacy not to mention the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Purge_victims
Cthulhu_|4 years ago
haasted|4 years ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivi...
magicalhippo|4 years ago
While detention must be evaluated at given intervals, it can be extended indefinitely[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_detention
[2]: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvaring
pimterry|4 years ago
It doesn't mean that such prisoners are definitely released with 21 years - it can (and likely will) be extended indefinitely for as long as a prisoner remains dangerous to society:
> If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment.
cannabis_sam|4 years ago
mario_lopez|4 years ago
Wow.
As chilling as this all is, I appreciate you sharing.
rectang|4 years ago
In the US, we're accustomed to mass killings not changing anything, and I'm curious if Utoya was different.
donquichotte|4 years ago
BBC-vs-neolibs|4 years ago
[deleted]
goldenkey|4 years ago
ceejayoz|4 years ago
ccakes|4 years ago
unixhero|4 years ago
iamshs|4 years ago
[deleted]
ashtonkem|4 years ago
[deleted]
sinyug|4 years ago
[deleted]
roschdal|4 years ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz|4 years ago
foreigner|4 years ago
magicalhippo|4 years ago
Arguing that ABB using legally purchased guns means gun control doesn't work is pretty much the same as saying burglars will bypass the lock on your door so might as well not have any doors in your home.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/breivik-kjopte-drapsvapen-i-r...
[2]: https://www.tv2.no/a/13199459/
Cthulhu_|4 years ago
foolinaround|4 years ago
As a thought experiment, do you think there would be so many casualities if this island was located in Texas, USA where socialists/labor party is also not very popular?
refurb|4 years ago
Just the other day a 16 year old student in Singapore used an axe to kill a 13 year old in a bathroom at school. They had never met.
ceejayoz|4 years ago
foolinaround|4 years ago
The best way is to identify the roots behind what attracts the followers of these ideologies, address any root issues, and attack the premises behind the ideologies itself.
Not talking to these incidents, but all over the world, people tend to violence when they feel that the system does not hear them.
cmrdporcupine|4 years ago
iratewizard|4 years ago