Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Anders Breivik and Europe's Exoneration

The Madness of His Method

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Societies, if we are to take the Freudian line, prefer to subordinate chaotic urges in favour of dull order.  Civilization implies stability.  By the nineteenth century, human society was digesting a range of theories on ‘constants’, be it in such matters as gravity or the speed of light.  This, argues Ian Hacking, was largely due to a desire to tame chance.  Those who seem fit to violate this are deemed aberrant, disorderly and reprobate. 

The charge of madness and lunacy is therefore an ideal accusation, the perfect riposte against collective responsibility.  The scene is set by observations that paint Norway as sylvan idyll that was rudely disrupted by the killings inflicted by Anders Breivik.  Jack Knox, columnist for the Canadian Times Colonist, spoke of how frightened he was that ‘the murders in Norway ? sensible, peaceful affluent Norway’ took place in a country ‘so familiar, both in look and feel’ (Jul 26).  Was mother nature playing tricks?

In the Breivik case, the man’s ideas and his deeds are convenient fused.  He did these acts within a peaceful society (not Iraq, not Afghanistan), and must therefore be touching the fringes of the unstable.  Closely allied to this is the suggestion that he is a fantasist, a delusionary who imagines plotting followers in cells awaiting the next crusading push.  Such accusations make it tempting to dismiss Breivik’s acts as singular, solitary and irrelevant to a broader European debate on culture and tolerance.

The irrational sentiment is often misunderstood.  It is not a valued commodity these days, even if, as Albert Camus recalls in his notebooks after the Second World War, it was the only thing that kept creativity alive.  After all, rational beings created the gas chambers and camps running to the bellicose melodies of Richard Wagner.  Breivik was, in a sense, placing a form of rationalism behind the gun.

Tidy labels of medical resort prevent self-analysis and vital questioning.  Breivik’s ramblings in his 1500 page manifesto have an interior coherence.  Behind such terms as ‘cultural Marxism’ lie a traditional loathing that any advocate of minimalist government might feel.  Government is the enemy, especially if it capitulates over its own ideals on such matters as free speech.  (Breivik notes the Rushdie affair, and the cartoon incident.)  In this, Breivik exhibits a close similarity with the reasoning of Oklahoma Bomber Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people with a fertiliser bomb in 1995.  Prior to being officially sentenced to death, McVeigh cited the dissenting words of Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v The United States.  ‘For good or for ill, [Government] teaches the whole people by its example.’

Breivik’s distaste for multiculturalism is itself a traditional view by a member of a conservative society.  In addition to this, studies in recent years have also shown that the radical right is becoming a serious presence in Europe.  But what, exactly, is this radicalism about? 

The report by the Berlin-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination:  A European Report (2008) found a good strain of old-fashioned xenophobia amongst a sampling of 1,000 persons across Britain, the Netherlands, Poland, France, Hungary, Italy, Germany and Portugal.  True, an average of seventy percent of Europeans were positive to immigration, but ‘about half of all European respondents said that there were too many immigrants in their country and that jobs should be given to non-immigrants first in times of crisis.’  Disturbingly, the report found that a third of those surveyed still hold the view that there is ‘a natural hierarchy of races’, with whites at the top of the food chain.

Behind Breivik’s observations of ‘Islamisization’ creeping across Europe lie a broadly felt suspicion of the deeds of the Prophet, whose Ottoman warriors were stemmed at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and the Battle of Vienna in 1683.  Broadly, he claims to be a cultural conservative Christian in that he shares a belief ‘in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity, and moral platform.’  ‘At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church.’  The Christian label applies, claims Breivik, even to conservative Europeans who are professed agnostics.

Such attitudes suggest that politically stable institutions, unless they are complemented by cultural tolerance, make uncomfortable bedfellows.  The liberalism of such societies as Norway, Denmark and Sweden is hard to challenge, but nor is the presence of emergent populism that frowns on the increased mobility of citizens within the EU and failed attempts to integrate displaced peoples, many from Islamic countries.  On the other side of the fence, Breivik’s desire to see a Muslim cleansing is not far removed from the claim of some Mullahs in Scandinavia who would wish Sharia law and a theocracy to be established within the environs of European society.

Breivik’s lawyer has attempted to lead the lunacy charge by a plea to the court of insanity.  It is very much society’s escape clause.  Breivik gets off murder and gets into a ward to be medicated for the rest of his life; European society is left off the hook ? after all, to take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, only one man did it. 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com