Saturday, July 30, 2011

Reflections on Anders Breivik

Conclusion (rendered in advance):

Anders Behring Breivik was wrong to have killed 77 of his fellow Norwegians – 69 by gunshot, 8 by bomb blast.

My personal stake:
I have personal reasons for opening this essay with my Conclusion. First, it would be too easy to delve into various subtleties of this case and overlook what is most important: What Breivik did was wrong. Also, Breivik and I are both lone wolves, though (to mix two species) of very different stripes. What he did not only gives lone wolves a bad name, it gives anxious authorities that much more reason to harass us. This unwanted attention actually bodes badly for all who care about ever-shrinking personal liberties.
The lone wolf who is willing to sacrifice himself on the altar of militant action is next-to-impossible for anti-terrorism forces to defeat. The lone wolf has no chance of realizing his goals and few of inspiring other solitary actors, but his threats against our lives and liberties are very real.
Of course, the cynic might claim any effort on my part to denounce Breivik’s actions or philosophy could be nothing more than a smokescreen. There have been anti-Islamic right-wingers who have denounced his methods to (probably) protect themselves from the wrath of the public and the authorities. So, I am not going to denounce Breivik or wish him any harm. All I will try to do here is to point out a few things. I don’t pretend to know all the answers, but I can ask a pretty good question or two. So, bear with me.

Anders Behring Breivik, personally speaking
I can only offer some superficial impressions, since I don’t know Mr. Breivik at all. My first impression, after skimming his 1,500 page compendium (see link at end of this essay): “Looks to me like all of us, including Breivik himself, are once again victims of a man with a complicated mind.”
There’s nothing wrong with having a complicated mind. Sometimes, though, it prevents one from seeing the forest for the trees or from appreciating different sets of complications embraced by others.
Anders is a good-looking young man who will never himself know the mixed-blessings that are marriage and fatherhood. Unless there’s something about the Norwegian system of justice I don’t know about (and also assuming he is found criminally responsible). Judging by his photos on the internet, he likes to strike a pose – dressed in a military uniform or in a compression suit wielding an assault rifle. This reminds me of too many young people I know who thrive on role-playing games. I find myself wishing they had personalities of their own.
The only unflattering picture I’ve seen of Anders is as a prisoner sitting in a squad car. There, he looks a lot like Jared Lee Loughner, who allegedly tried to kill U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in January of this year.  A friend of mine, having seen pictures of both, said, “These men were under mind control, not responsible for their actions.” I do not accept this conclusion, though I offer it here as one (remote) possibility.

Point/Counterpoint

I’m going to quote portions of Breivik’s manifesto as “Points,” responding to each with my “Counterpoints.”

Point [This is the text of Breivik’s title page]:
2083
A European Declaration of Independence
De Laude Novae Militiae [translation: In praise of the new knighthood]
Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici [translation: Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (aka Knights Templar)]
By Andrew Berwick, London – 2011

Counterpoint:
The year 2083, in the title, refers to the time when Islamic influence in Europe will be totally eliminated. Obviously, Mr. Breivik has no sympathy for those who think the world will end in the year 2012.
I’m not clear on why the memory of the Knights Templar is invoked, since many Europeans see themselves as unabashed secularists. Centuries of religious warfare have weaned many on the continent away from religious banners. Even Breivik himself says he’s not a very religious person.

Point
It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing Islamisation.


Counterpoint

Of whom is he speaking when citing “our identity?” A European may well be a European (as opposed to an Antarctican), but a Norwegian would not identify as an Irishman. Nor would a Spaniard identify as a German. Nor would members of various youth movements think they’ll ever get old or conservative. And his last bit about “national sovereignty” is odd, considering his piece is entitled “A European Declaration of Independence.” The last time I checked, Europe is not a nation.

Point
More than 90% of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95% of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe; yet, they DO NOT have the permission of the European peoples to implement these doctrines.

Counterpoint
How does he make the leap to “therefore?” If this 90% and 95% are “supporters of [Euro] multiculturalism,” why would they support Islamic colonization of Europe? You’d think they would support measures to protect that multicultural flavor, which in fact would be enhanced by including Muslim immigrants.
Anders Breivik seems to think all Muslims are cut from the same (monolithic, terrorist) cloth. Even within the countries of the Islamic world, there are profound differences among Muslims. The Shia of Iran and Sunni of Arabia think of each other as heretics. And the Sufi of, among other places, Africa, are certainly not to be ignored. As for Muslims living in Europe, many had fled from oppression in their homelands and welcome the chance to prosper and raise families in a more tolerant Europe.
As for Anders’ claim “they DO NOT have the permission of the European peoples to implement these doctrines,” how does he know that? If the 90% and 95% he speaks of embrace multiculturalism, there’s a better than even chance their constituencies feel the same way. If the immigrant Muslims inspire their established countrymen in any bad way, religious differences are not the cause. Lagging assimilation into the larger society and a bad economy (causing competition for scarce resources) are likelier culprits.
As for “Islamic colonization” – say what? The actions of Europe and the US in Afghanistan and Iraq are far more colonial in nature than those of the Muslim immigrants trying to eke out a better life in Europe. If Anders Breivik had really wanted to fight a more direct Islamic threat, he could have joined Norway’s armed forces, volunteering to join their contingent in Afghanistan. But, no, he decided to resist Norway’s military conscription laws (three times) on the flimsy excuse that he didn’t want to put his life on the line for the sake of Norway’s political parties.
What the hell is the Norwegian military doing in Afghanistan anyway, other than doing the bidding of a US which expects Norwegian tribute?

Point
As we all know, the root of Europe's problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism).

Counterpoint
Again, Breivik speaks of European nationalism but really means European nationalisms (plural). Besides, a lack of self-confidence is probably the real issue in his own case. How else to explain the “confidence” of a man who would shoot unarmed civilians (children) like shooting fish in a barrel? How else to account for a man who wears a military uniform, but only to pose for photographs?

Some miscellaneous comments
On terrorism
I am a Buddhist, so I always ask myself, “What would the Buddha do?” I can’t see Shakyamuni shooting fish in a barrel, or even going fishing. So I let his behavior be my guiding light.
There are people who think they have to resort to terrorism, including many in my own government. There are some who do this out of desperation – real or imagined. But in too many cases, this is just taking the easy way out and shows a certain lack of creativity. Quite often, there truly are better ways – think, people, think.

On nationalism
Nationalism, and the elites supported by this ism, are the deadliest threats to world peace. We have to find ways to open borders, not close them; to fight elitism and promote the universal brotherhood of man.

On religious differences
I look forward to the day when Buddhism gains a wider audience in Europe.  Especially when its central tenet of compassion for all can overcome “How can I get more for me and my kind?” The spirit of almsgiving drives us to ask, not how much we can take but how much and in what ways can we give? However, I am not referring to popularly practiced versions of Buddhism. I have my own ideas of what is properly Buddhist, which I invite you to view elsewhere on this blog.

On Breivik’s killings on that island
Anders might have been thinking, “If I kill their kids, they’ll see that no safe haven exists anywhere.” Not to mention, “I’ve given them a reason never to forget my message.” Well, that sounds an awful lot like, “If a nice Norwegian boy like me can do such an awful thing, imagine what Muslims (who we ‘know’ are a whole lot worse) will do once they establish a firmer foothold in Norway.”
I can’t help but thinking that Breivik had better strategies at his disposal. He risked huge backlash and would have made recruitment to his cause more difficult in the face of hostile public and law enforcement responses. Suppose that Norway’s Islamic community had stepped forward and donated blood to local hospitals tending to Breivik’s wounded, thereby gaining a respect unintended by this attacker. These attacks by Anders seem too much like a flash-in-the-pan approach, which is at odds with the long-term (nearly 10 years!), systematic approach he’d taken toward the development and writing of his ideas.
Given this contradiction, it would be well worth pondering whether Breivik was manipulated by some invisible hand. The easiest way to approach that line of thinking is to ask, “Who would stand to gain the most from Breivik’s actions?” My best guess? Euro elites who are wary of infiltration by agents of Islamic elites.

On Multiculturalism
I don’t look at differences among people in terms of their “culture” but in terms of their karma. It’s easier to think only of culture, since that takes into account certain obvious traits. However, karma extends back in time to cover actions performed by individuals over untold numbers of lifetimes. Westerners don’t like dealing with anything outside the box, since they’re much more comfortable with what they can see before their very eyes. For this reason, they make good accountants. But the accounting that really counts takes much more into consideration than what we can see with our eyes.
Since that is deemed too difficult, if not unreliable and downright mystic, pragmatic people tend to denounce or marginalize karmic considerations. However, the plain truth is: People are a whole lot more complicated than that and so is the truth.

On forgiving Anders Breivik
Shakyamuni Buddha said*, “I look upon all things as being universally equal. I have no mind to favor this or that, to love one or hate another.”
The Buddha saw past cultural differences, and differences of caste and gender. He saw our universal equality which, as he clarifies later, means the ability of each of us to become a fully-enlightened Buddha. Love has nothing to do with getting there, nor does hate. Each of us thinking (obsessively!) of all others as potential Buddhas will help each of us to realize that loftiest of all goals.
The Buddha even saw potential in a mass murderer known historically as Angulimala, who cut off the fingers of his 1,000 victims in order to make a grotesque necklace. If the Buddha could welcome such a man into his order of monks, to work on atoning for his murders, the least we can do (for now) is to stop thinking bad thoughts about Anders Behring Breivik. And maybe even buying him a beer when he gets out of jail.

Conclusion (repeated from above)
Anders Behring Breivik was wrong to have killed 77 of his fellow Norwegians – 69 by gunshot, 8 by bomb blast.

* * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There are too many people with too much to gain who are trying to hide too many things from us to indulge in any leaping to conclusions.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


   * According to the Burton Watson translation of the Lotus Sutra, see chapter 5.  

No comments:

Post a Comment