Terrorism or Acts of a Lone Wolf Madman?
There can be no doubt that the recent acts of violence in Norway are acts of terrorism. Whether or not there is found to be a network of accomplices, the sheer audacity, hate, racism, and cold calculation-coupled with mass murder-easily fit this event into the category of terrorism.
It was dismaying to see even respectable news media, including a columnist for the Washington Post, jumping to the unwarranted conclusion, in early commentary, that the terrorism had roots in radical Islam. Well, in fact, the opposite was the case. Now that the mass killings are known to be perpetrated by a blond, blue-eyed white, European male, there will be vast forces tilting the argument away from terrorism toward theories of the solitary madman, the lone wolf, etc.
Basic logic says that the accused, named Anders Breivik, could not have carried out his terroristic monstrosity without friends and suppliers. For example, he did not manufacture either his weaponry or the fertilizer used in his bomb. For another example, he had a uniform and identity papers of sufficient quality to get him close in for mass murder by shooting. For both examples, it will be necessary to determine who sold what and when, whether forgery is involved, and who knew of the plans he had.
All of that information will come out in the context of on-going and thorough investigation, but the investigation must be truly on-going and thorough, with no loose ends and no easy acceptance of shrugged shoulders from persons being interviewed.
Future Reports on the Attack and Implications of Public Debates
The reports of the details will be long in coming, but after investigators conduct interviews with several hundred people, some patterns will emerge:
1) Fallacies about superiority of race, gender, religion, and culture.
Breivik, to be blunt, is an ignorant, hate-filled man of small intellect who does not represent a superior race, gender or culture. And yet he claimed to act in defense of what he defined as indigenous culture. His defense was simply nothing more than terrorism by mass murder, through bombing and shooting unarmed people.
Well, then, he did not claim to defend the indigenous culture of the Arctic region Saami, who in fact are among the oldest indigenous cultures in Eurasia. The Saami and related groups, included the Kven cultures, according to the most ancient of historical records, have been present in Norway (and Sweden, Finland and Russia) since before the beginnings of written history. Furthermore, given the vast importation of slaves from all over the world by vikings over hundreds of years, it is simply impossible to describe the dominant Norwegian society as pure or indigenous.
Finally, contrary to Breivik's narrow views on his main complaints, Norway has always had a variety of small religious groups. And, as in ancient times and in our contemporary times, women in Norway exercise power in many, if not all, elements of Norwegian life.
So how could Breivik possibly hope to reverse all of the ways of Norway by his shallow arguments and his terrorist acts? Well, like the thugs who usually embrace his type of thinking, he hoped to change Norway by committing mass violence and killing, which in turn (he thought) would shock society into action along the lines of his thinking. He did so the way the old Brown Shirts and the Ku Klux Klan always have: by being rough and tough around defenseless or unprotected people, by cowardly attacks, and by using overwhelming violence to destroy and to intimidate opposition.
The utter nonsense of Breivik's ideas of racial, gender, religious, and cultural superiority have been refuted for so long and in so many ways that it is almost a waste of time here to add further put-downs of such concepts. Yet the reports coming out of this terrorist attack will show that thousands of people, even in educated, wealthy Norway, are influenced by, or even filled with the utter nonsense of Breivik's ideas. And furthermore, many will make statements to the effect that, we can hardly blame the poor, frustrated fellow for his feelings.
Beyond that, some will deplore his violence, but argue for the validity of his ideological points. The problem with that approach is that, in fact, Breivik's violence arises as the logical result of his ideology. Surely, that ideology, in the long-range debates of our nations, must be refuted and shown for the utter nonsense that it is. Breivik's ideology, if indeed it can be dignified with that term, is a stale rehash of old racism, male chauvinism, aryanism, and perverted interpretations of Christianity. The refutation of the screeds of Breivik (and his ideological entourage) needs to be a relentless refutation, point-by-point, and accompanied by frank discussions of Breivik's multiple false ideas of superiority of race, gender, religion and culture.
2) Failure to examine various sources of terrorism.
Yet another pattern will emerge, which is that security personnel all over the world have been obsessed with Islamic radicals, and have overlooked on the one hand other potential sources of terrorism such as the Breiviks, and on the other hand methods of prevention and response. That discussion will go on for the foreseeable future. One example comes to mind: It is no failure of democracy to have rapid-response SWAT-type teams available for such horrific situations. Simply put, the unconscionable delay in Oslo of the authorities turned out to cost lives, due to the lack of basic equipment (helicopters, for example) and thorough training.
This represents a failure of Norwegian leadership, when every modern nation is morally obligated to have plenty of resources and training for rapid response to such large-scale terrorism as in the Breivik case. Another example comes to mind: Breivik claims affinity to or influence from many racist or supremacist groups. Again, it is no failure democracy to investigate those claims and to root out financial or logistical support systems that might exist among these groups.
Looking to the Future and a Bit of Saami Context
Breivik's terrorist acts took many lives, including the lives of Saami who were participating in the summer programs offered them. In the wake of Breivik's terrorist acts, Norway as a nation, and the various social and ethnic elements of Norway seem to be united in affirming the human rights of all, and in rejecting the nonsense and violence of Breivik and his ilk. Surely the future of Norway will be subject to self-examination. In a democracy this is on-going and desirable. And surely, as historical events are retold, Norway will examine its own history of religious and ethnic oppression.
Among those historical events of oppression are included just a few things that come to mind: 1) former restrictions on Jews; 2) the great Saami Kautokeino Uprising of 1852, recently portrayed so well in Nils Gaup's film Kautokeino opproret; and 3) the cooperation of many Norwegians with the Nazi occupation during World War II. I would hope too that many scholars would step forward to reiterate that the Vikings brought so many wives and slaves back from their wars that the very concept of racial and ethnic purity in Norway becomes worse than a joke, and instead becomes a complete impossibility.
Let us, then, in the Churchillian phraseology, draw on our Saami or other ties to Norway, and let us so brace ourselves that a thousand years hence, people will read of us, see us on film, know how we rose to the challenge of living together, and say of us all that this has been among their finest hours. A worthy challenge, for a worthy purpose.
