Untimely Observations

The Tragedy in Norway and the Search for Convenient Scapegoats

Before I went to sleep last night, the first, excited news programming started to appear. Excited is the proper word. The mainstream media is like a many-headed Hydra whose appetite knows no bounds. It devours information and following a process of digestion through which this information is filtered, exaggerated, and perverted into a barely recognizable abstraction of its former self, it is excreted from the other end as “news”. The primary purpose of this news, of course, is to garner the attention of the masses and convince them to buy something or other, or to support this or that policy or objective of those wielding genuine power . . . often to the detriment of the masses themselves. As a consequence of this insatiable hunger, the Hydra greeted the Norwegian tragedy with unconcealed excitement and an intense flurry of activity . . . destined to ensure that not a single morsel of information—regardless how trivial, unsupported by facts, or irrelevant to the actual, human tragedy—goes to waste. As an example of this frenzy one can take a look at the BBC coverage, where they already have eight tabs of largely redundant information at hand for the viewer; including a “Live” tab and a “Latest” tab, which confuses me, of course—because one would think that the Live tab would always be a little bit more up-to-date than the Latest tab—since it is, well, live.

Before writing anything else, let me state clearly and without any reservations that I am shocked and saddened by the events unfolding in Norway. Regardless of the eventual justification that those involved proffer for these actions; whether they be the actions of a single person or of an organized group. The killing of innocent civilians is always and everywhere a despicable means of achieving ends. I can think of no instance where it was justified. Unfortunately, numerous instances of massive, civilian killing—on a scale that makes recent Norwegian events pale in significance—have been and will for the foreseeable future be accepted—even celebrated by some—as justifiable acts of forces of good. Witness Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Berlin. But for the victims and their family and friends, such abstractions are of no consequence to their real, immediate, and life-changing pain and loss. I offer them my heartfelt sympathy, while at the same time I am overcome by a genuine feeling of anger and the hope that those responsible are found and appropriately dealt with.

As the breaking news from Norway unfolded—via breathless and energetic exchanges between various, well-coiffed and manicured talking heads in London and elsewhere—I was as surprised and dismayed as many to hear that the current suspect is a blond Norwegian man. The blond part of his description being as prominently displayed by the various news entities as his hair and skin color would be concealed if he had happened to be of a more swarthy complexion. Indeed, one could almost hear the collective sign of relief, accompanying a certain degree of perverse pleasure, on the part of the chattering class to the revelation that it was . . . or could be . . . or could be presented as . . . a native, white, right-winger who perpetrated this crime. And of course, every morsel of news—every crumb of information that could be construed to connect Mr. Breivik with the “extreme right” and with “neo-Nazis”, has been devoured and put to good use. The fact that so much of this “information” is unsubstantiated and may in fact be reversed over the next few days or weeks is irrelevant. They say you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. In this case, the perverse inversion of this principle is being put to good use, in much the same way that the MSM applied the “far-right, neo-Nazi, extremist” label to the deranged Mr. Loughner; the shooter of Arizona congresswoman Giffords. The objective, of course, is to use guilt by association as a instrument to undermine growing popular support for the objectives of righist movements; since more conventional means of argumentation—such as the use of “facts”—are tragically beyond the means of the MSM. Or more to the point, since facts tend to overwhelmingly and inconveniently support the objectives and arguments of the right. I suppose it's possible that either Mr. Breivik or Mr. Loughner were also members of book clubs, or possibly attended Tupperware parties. In neither case will we hear suggestions voiced that people who read books or use plastic storage containers could pose a higher risk to polite society.

So now the witch-hunting can begin. But as the forces of all that is good and just in the world (e.g. the agents of liberalism in both its leftish and rightish permutations) begin to sharpen their knives in preparation for the brutalization of their ideological opponents via character-assassination, misrepresentation of fact, stereotyping and prejudice, and guilt by association; it seems wise to point out certain “facts on the ground” as they say.

Let us assume for a minute that the almost incredible story which seems to be coming together is true. Namely, that a lone, 32 year-old, native Norwegian man with ties to the “far-right” could and did coordinate and carry out a large-scale bombing and a shooting massacre by himself. For reasons that have nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with practicality and human capability, I am finding this interpretation difficult to accept, which only adds to the argument that people should refrain from jumping to conclusions regarding the perpetrator(s) and their cause(s). It seems so convenient in a Machiavellian way. How can one avoid harboring thoughts of false-flag operations? The forces working frenziedly to build their new world order on the rubble of our collective civilization—a civilization that they are actively working to destroy—find themselves faced with growing popular opposition to their vile and usually underhanded acts of genocide on a multi-continental scale. Could one find a more ideal poster-boy for evil than a apparently handsome, blond-haired, blue-eyed, Nordic (in the absolute sense), Christian, heterosexual (I'm assuming), gun-owning, right-wing conspiring, man? Well yes—they could find two or more of them—and put together a movement. That would be even more ideal...but they're not done with the story-telling, so let's not give them too many ideas.

Even if this proves to be true—not only on the surface but in its entirety—it cannot be stated clearly enough that no sane person and no organization that can even conceivably be placed in the “far right” category could or would support such despicable actions. Ignoring for a moment the human aspects of these tragedies, the incredulousness, incomprehension, and frank willingness to consider conspiratorial explanations one observes on the right side of the fence in such times illustrates the extent to which we not only categorically reject such acts of terrorism, but the extent to which we are aware that any such associations with legitimate concerns of western peoples (e.g. the ideological positions of the “extreme right”) are completely counter-productive.

We must not allow ourselves to accept slanderous insinuations applied with a broad brush without protest. The perpetrators themselves—as was the case of Jared Loughner and Timothy McVeigh—are directly answerable for their acts. Their guilt is not shared by some nebulous movement or movements with whom they might share a handful of ideas that the state doesn't approve of. Rather than members of the right-wing feeling shame as a consequence of whatever common ideological ground that may exist; members of the collective monstrosity that is the MSM, the political and functional apparatchiks, and those holding real power who have put our entire civilization in distress are the ones who should be burdened by guilt and shame. That they would use the deaths of children as a weapon to conceal their own, incalculably brutal crime and attack those who dare oppose it is a testament to their mendacity.