by Dr. K R Bolton, Foreign Policy Journal, July 29, 2011
The news media has had a field day in headlining Anders Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the “far Right,” and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik is an avid Zionist whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarian and “neo-conservative.” He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the “clash of civilizations.”
Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a “Zionist,” and as a “stanch supporter of Israel”? As is often the case, the fictional “far Right” connection is a red herring. Headlines could have read “Zionist extremist on shooting spree,” “Israel supporter massacres youngsters at Labour camp in Norway,” and the like.
Continues >>
The news media has had a field day in headlining Anders Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the “far Right,” and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik is an avid Zionist whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarian and “neo-conservative.” He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the “clash of civilizations.”
Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a “Zionist,” and as a “stanch supporter of Israel”? As is often the case, the fictional “far Right” connection is a red herring. Headlines could have read “Zionist extremist on shooting spree,” “Israel supporter massacres youngsters at Labour camp in Norway,” and the like.
Continues >>
1 comment:
Some comments that appeared in Foreign Policy Journal in reply to my commnet in FPJ are reproduced here.
Nasir Khan wrote:
The enormity of the crimes of this Christian Zionist with his extreme rightist agenda and his well-planned and systematic slaughter of so many young people baffles many of us in Norway and around the world. Norway is a free and democratic country where people can express their views. There is a high level of tolerance and acceptance of people of European and non-European origin who have different religions, modes of living and social ways. These things make Norway a brilliant example of how a just socio-political system should be.
At the same time, I am also aware of the dangers and pressures that non-European communities in Norway and the rest of the western world could have faced if this mass murderer were not a blond native Norwegian but a non-European. We know how the non-white communities, especially Muslims, were treated throughout Europe and North America after the 9/11. So, no matter who was responsible for the 9/11, all Muslim communities had to face terror and insults at the hands of the white people. I had seen and also experienced myself how the Muslims were subjected to much humiliation in Norway at the hands of some people.
Edward Reply
August 1, 2011 at 7:46 am
“These things make Norway a brilliant example of how a just socio-political system should be.”
Maybe we should judge by results. It seems that these days the results produced by Norway have been less than edifying with their involvement in Afghanstan, Iraq, Libya and now at home.
But maybe Afghanstan, Iraq, Libya are too far away to be worried about the their pain an suffering.
Nasir Khan Reply
August 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Edward, you are right when you mention Norway’s involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Norway has been a loyal ally and a Yes-man to American global politics. All the Norwegian governments after the Second World War have been staunch supporters of the policies of the Zionist State of Israel. Norway’s pro-Israel and pro-Zionist parties like Christian People’s Party and the ultra right-wing Progress Party have been supporters of Israeli wars, its colonisation of the occupied territories, its brutal suppression of the people of Palestine, and the massacres of the Palestinians whenever they took place. Along with some fundamental Christians and ordinary believing Christians, they supported Israeli invasion of Gaza and the massacre in 2009 under the oft-repeated mantra or the notorious deceptive gimmick that ‘Israel has a right to defend itself itself’. And full stop; that’s the end of the matter.
While Norway has a subservient role in the foreign policy matters due to dominant influence of the hegemon and its NATO membership, the welfare and egalitarian system within the borders of Norway needs praise and emulation. In fact that was the point I had made in my first comment. However, what an individual or a group can do or what sort of carnage Breivik resorted to is something no one can really control. Norway is an open and democratic state and its people are mostly non-aggressive and peaceful citizens.
Edward Reply
August 3, 2011 at 7:48 am
Your reply raises the question of individual responsibilty versus state responsibility. Where does the responsibility deficit we clearly see in modern Western society lie?
Maybe we we need to return the most basic principles of the right to the truth, life and the ownership of property.
Nasir Khan
August 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Edward, the question you raise about individual responsibility versus state responsibility is an interesting one that can lead to a lengthy academic discussion. Possibly, you have some ideas to put forth. In that case, I think, many readers of FPJ will be glad if you state your views. It is only after seeing what you say, will I be able to respond if I thought what I say is of some use.
Post a Comment