The Madness of His Method


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



Weekend Edition
October 2-4, 2015
Henry Giroux
Murder, USA: Why Politicians Have Blood on Their Hands
Jennifer Loewenstein
Heading Toward a Collision: Syria, Saudi Arabia and Regional Proxy Wars
John Pilger
Wikileaks vs. the Empire: the Revolutionary Act of Telling the Truth
Mike Whitney
Putin’s Lightning War in Syria
Gary Leupp
A Useful Prep-Sheet on Syria for Media Propagandists
Jeffrey St. Clair
Pesticides, Neoliberalism and the Politics of Acceptable Death
Joshua Frank
The Need to Oppose All Foreign Intervention in Syria
Lawrence Ware – Paul Buhle
Insurrectional Black Power: CLR James on Race and Class
Oliver Tickell
Jeremy Corbyn’s Heroic Refusal to be a Nuclear Mass Murderer
Helen Yaffe
Che’s Economist: Remembering Jorge Risquet
Mark Hand
‘Rape Rooms’: How West Virginia Women Paid Off Coal Company Debts
Yves Engler
War Crimes in the Dark: Inside Canada’s Special Forces
Arno J. Mayer
Israel: the Wages of Hubris and Violence
W. T. Whitney
Cuban Government Describes Devastating Effects of U. S. Economic Blockade
Brian Cloughley
The US-NATO Alliance Destroyed Libya, Where Next?
Karl Grossman
The Politics of Lyme Disease
Barry Lando
Syria: Obama’s Bay of Pigs?
Andre Vltchek
Southeast Asia “Forgets” About Western Terror
Jose Martinez
American Violence: Umpqua is “Routine”?
Vijay Prashad
Russian Gambit, Syrian Dilemma
Sam Smith
Why the Democrats are in Such a Mess
Uri Avnery
Nasser and Me
Andrew Levine
The Saints March In: The Donald and the Pope
Arun Gupta
The Refugee Crisis in America
Michael Welton
Junior Partner of Empire: Why Canada’s Foreign Policy Isn’t What You Think
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Elections and Verbal Vomit
Dan Glazebrook
Refugees Don’t Cause Fascism, Mr. Timmermann – You Do
Victor Grossman
Blood Moon Over Germany
Patrick Bond
Can World’s Worst Case of Inequality be Fixed by Pikettian Posturing?
Pete Dolack
Earning a Profit from Global Warming
B. R. Gowani
Was Gandhi Averse to Climax? A Psycho-Sexual Assessment of the Mahatma
Tom H. Hastings
Another Mass Murder
Anne Petermann
Activists Arrested at ArborGen GE Trees World Headquarters
Ben Debney
Zombies on a Runaway Train
Franklin Lamb
Confronting ‘Looting to Order’ and ‘Cultural Racketeering’ in Syria
Carl Finamore
Coming to San Francisco? Cra$h at My Pad
Ron Jacobs
Standing Naked: Bob Dylan and Jesus
Missy Comley Beattie
What Might Does To Right
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi Jayanti, Gandhi’s Dream
Raouf Halaby
A Week of Juxtapositions
Louis Proyect
Scenes from the Class Struggle in Iran
Christopher Washburn
Skeptik’s Lexicon
Charles R. Larson
Indonesia: Robbed, Raped, Abused
David Yearsley
Death Songs
Jon Hochschartner
Does Word Policing Actually Help the Left?