Terrorist attacks cannot be senseless. Compared to diversions or acts of revenge, they always have something more to accomplish in addition to the death of innocent people – some political goals. Terrorism always addresses somebody, who as a rule is lucky not to be affected by the attack itself. Killing those who are weak and cannot respond usually is just a means to address those who are strong and bear some kind of responsibility.By the consequences of an attack we can tell who really stands behind it.
In view of this, the attacks carried out by Anders Breivik have deeper motives and not everything can be explained as easily as the murderer himself is trying to.
Mr. Breivik, who describes himself as a ‘freemason and a right-wing Christian fundamentalist’, said his aim was to “save Norway and western Europe from cultural Marxism and a Muslim takeover.” He said his attacks were targeting Norway’s ruling Labor Party, which he believed was responsible for creating a multicultural society in Norway. Mr. Breivik did not like the fact that migrants had equal rights with Norwegians. But this is where he contradicts himself.
Firstly, no matter what the Labor Party`s migration policy is, the process of ‘islamisation’ in Norway is far from ‘critical’ levels we can now see in Germany, France or Great Britain. Most of migrants arriving in Norway are not Muslim.
Secondly, conflicts between migrants and citizens may occur when the former happen to enjoy more privileges, for example, when facing the problem of unemployment, or when there is a real threat that migrants might be violating the country`s traditions. But there is nothing of the kind in Norway, where social security benefits for migrants are being formed not at the cost of the citizens` rights but relying on reserves owned by public foundations, which in their turn live mainly on oil rent.
Even if the situation was as critical as Mr. Breivik sees it, it would be more logical for him to attack Muslims. But he chose to attack ‘Norwegian traitors’.
The way how thoroughly Breivik had been preparing for the attacks gives food for thought. In his 1,500-page manifesto Breivik gave a detailed account of all ‘preparation phases’. To make a bomb, which went off in Oslo hours before the massacre on Utoya island, he had set up front companies to allow the purchase of fertiliser which is required in bomb-making. He also describes how he obtained a powerful gun.
His flawless ‘operation’ makes me doubt that he worked alone.Knowing the details, it would be more logical to suppose that he was assisted, especially at the very last moments of the preparation. Now as the investigation is under way, new details will be unveiled to prove or disprove this point of view. However, some facts allow us to make quite a detailed analysis of what has happened:
1) Place for attack. Norway tops the UN rating as the most developed and prosperous country in Europe. So killing 77 people and wounding dozens more there proves that there is no longer safe places worldwide.
2) Targets for attack. It was not chosen at random either. Though Breivik said his aim was to ‘send signal’ to people, they do no see his point, and the Norwegian leaders do not seem to be intimidated as well. Reports say that some 1,500 of young people attempted to lynch Breivik, which proves that the terrorist`s goals were not achieved. But the whole story showed that Europeans are absolutely unready to repel terrorist attacks, especially when their leaders say they are not going to protect anybody except themselves. Even 700 young people aged 14-25, who were staying on Utoya as members of the Labor Party summer camp, failed to capture Breivik. Certainly, there were security guards on the islands, there were adults, and the shooter was alone. The number of victims would have been even bigger unless Breivik did not run out of bullets. Norway, which had remained one of the safest places for decades, turned to be unprepared for handling such kind of ‘safety test’.
3) Promoting the idea of imminent catastrophe. That`s what Breivik did manage to achieve when mass media told people every detail about his ‘philosophical’ views. Breivik`s manifesto, entitled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”, is still available on the web. In his ‘declaration’ Breivik claims there are up to 80 cells in Europe, Russia including, ready to repeat similar attacks and implement the ‘Revolution from Tunisia to Urals’ idea.
4) The level of socially acceptable ‘cruelty‘ has been raised. Breivik was killing boys and girls, justifying himself by quoting the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski`s words that such actions ‘were gruesome but necessary’. It seems that Europeans are still deaf to what`s going on near them.
Of course, Chechnya, countries of the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan are not parts of Europe, they think. So why should they beware of Muslim hirelings – Albanians, Bosnians, Libyans, who are involved in unprecedentedly cruel crimes? Europeans are used to think they are safe and far from all that. But now that the tragedy has happened, Europeans have experienced fear and uncertainty.
5) Stability of the EU. Norway is not a member of the EU, but is part of the European economic zone and the Schengen zone. Shortly after the attacks Norway unilaterally imposed restrictions on the implementation of the Schengen agreement on its borders and resumed passport control.
The impact of Breivik`s attacks on Norway`s and the EU`s economies is not yet evident. However, the consequences might have been much worse, affecting Norway as one of the world`s largest oil exporters. This would have certainly have an impact on global economy, too.
6) Time of the attacks. The tragedy happened between the EU summit, dominated by the economic crisis, and the announced default risks in the United States. In other words, Norway attacks may be considered a kind of stress-test for manageable destruction of order.
7) Ideology. Strange as it might seem, a proclaimed freemason and far right extremist, Breivik actually sticks to left-wing, Trotskyist ideas: 1) deny any form of state guardianship over society, including social support, political correctness, regulations of industrial production and exchange. 2) promotion of a corporative society model. In other words, the meaning of Norway attacks is about supporting the ideology of neo-liberalism and fighting for stronger positions of transnational corporations. And this is what members of the Bilderberg Group seem to be about.
This way or another, if all that I`ve stressed in this article about Breivik`s attacks is right, the new European revolution is just a matter of time.
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation
Comments