I find this article disgusting. It is shameless emotional manipulation where the author focuses in detail about the actions of a depraved and evil man and tries to conflate sympathy for the victims of the tragedy to sympathy for her cause. Then she acts like anyone who disagrees with her is little different than him. Åsne Seierstad does little to even explain what political disagreements are even occurring in her country. All she does is claim that all those who have different opinions from her are racists, murderers, and neo-(you know).
…Exactly, for those born into homogeneous communities/ethnicities, and who’s personality type includes strong “disgust” for outsiders, the failure by political “liberals” to acknowledge that restrictions on foreigners need to be discussed and negotiated, is a major justification for extremism. The Taliban, ISIS etc., would appear to have many Breiviks in their midst.
Ah, so you are one of those. Shameless emotional manipulation? Check! Bare bones argument where little background is given? Check! Assumes it does not need to go into the political background of the issues? Check! Pretends like it is talking about policy when it will not even be specific? Check! Going into pornographic detail about a tragedy? Check! Rambling and unfocused? Check! Dealing with an internet idiot who accuses others of being a racist for criticizing a manipulative, incoherent, and poorly written article that a high school teacher would throw out? Double check!
Agree, Matt.
I thought it was going to be a cogent analysis if that were possible. Instead it seems to suggest the answer is more politics but only of her approved kind.
I think you’re being unfair. The comments she reports that a survivor received from some far right nutters were so depraved that it should give us pause.
My default position is that we should not shut down the speech even of the far right but sometimes people can be so cruel that I doubt that.
Yes, the article is emotive and biased and it’s clear she would probably support hate speech laws but it’s a reflection on a tragedy so terrible that I think this reasonable.
I think hate speech laws and the continued proscription of allowed opinions is part of what drives people like Breivik in the first place. Ban hate speech laws and get used to more speech, being offended, being debated.
Glad I’m not the only one thinking this.
Nobody in their right mind would condone Breivik’s actions, and it is most certainly essential that people try to understand why it happened. Which this article certainly doesn’t even scratch at.
The author doesn’t so much tap into the emotions of the victims as wallows in them. It distils these poor people’s tears and begs the readers to drink them to purify themselves – because anyone who doesn’t must be the same as Breivik and evil, evil evil right wing.
Nor does this offer any actual information as to why it may have happened. Nothing practical and realistic to tell us about the continued threat from people such as Breivik, that she suggests are everywhere. She accuses Norway of:
its failure to address the root causes of the Breivik attack.
But offers no root causes herself either. Perhaps less time coddling bereaved families and more time doing some investigative journalism instead?
Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Hersch Schneider
2 years ago
‘The country has spent a decade failing to address what caused the attack’
This article, ironically, fails in the exact same way. A deeper analysis is required on the Labour Party’s immigration policies and the resultant changing social fabric of Norwegian society.. rather than just ‘the Labour party are noble and correct, and anyone who disagrees is a far right neo-Nazi.. because Breivik!’
Agree. I was expecting some discussion on the Great Replacement theory, as Breivik was into that. Nada.
David Nebeský
2 years ago
“Breivik’s views … resemble words that are spread even by parliamentarians on the Right.” And Norwegian Labor Party views resemble words of Joseph Stalin. So what? Resemblance is not an argument for a decent and rational discussion.
What a crap article. It clarifies nothing. After reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali book Prey, I suspect Scandinavians are experts in ignoring problems. That’s why in a country that is a member of NATO there wasn’t a helicopter available in Oslo! A Pollyanna view of life inspires Norway to receive thousands of Muslins immigrants with little education and with appalling beliefs. The far-right operates under the nose of Scandinavian authorities; they don’t even do a good job pretending. One thing though is the same everywhere in Europe, the moral superiority of the Social democrats. They might talk but they don’t listen. They don’t listen to the Muslim immigrants and don’t take them seriously, they don’t listen to people that criticized their perfect immigration policy and brand them as far-right and of course, they don’t listen to the far right either. Reality avoidance. That’s the new article the author should write, she seems to excel at it.
Very well put! The Scandinavians are naive about a key reason for their success – they are, were at least remarkably homogeneous societies by world and European standards, with the exception of some discrimination against the Lapps. The Left there have a very naive view on how easy it is yo integrate meaningfully high numbers of immigrants, especially young men, from entirely different and very illiberal societies.
Arild Brock
2 years ago
BREIVIK‘S MOTHER AND THE MISSING FATHER
„Important events do not always have important causes”. This was uttered by the Norwegian philosopher and social scientist Jon Elster shortly after the 22. July assassinations (which I think is the right noun) in 2011. I am not sure if Breivik should be considered an important person. His decision (and ability) to do the assassinations had tragic immediate consequences – and it was thus important – but he and his person should perhaps not be attributed importance.
But of course one would like to look for anything beyond Breivik’s person that could offer an explanation. Two kinds of explanation could be of interest: Possible lack of adequate police (and other) protection and anything beyond Breivik’s person that might positively have influenced his atrocious deed. Seierstad finds something which is of the latter kind, but with a little of the first too. She finds some explanation in scepticism against prevailing immigration policy. I guess the consequence of this explanation would be to stamp down harder on criticism against prevailing immigration policy. She and her political associates could then hope that this criticism will die and that no new Breivik can emerge without such political views in existence.
If Norway has failed to deal with the assassinations, however, I think the failure is another one. There are other things to be found in society than scepticism to immigration policy and which may have influenced the planning and enactment of Breivik’s atrocious deed. Breivik grew up with what we could call a dysfunctional mother and without his father. This does not excuse Breivik’s deed – as long as Breivik is considered accountable (and he was found legally accountable). But even when no excuse: If the circumstances around Breivik’s upbringing are likely to have influenced his deed, and reflect general traits in society, such circumstances would certainly be of interest.
This is what Seierstad misses out completely. In the months after the assassinations Breivik’s childhood, which includes a dysfunctional mother fighting successfully to keep the father out of the child’s life, had some attention in Norway. The social-democratic society Norway had a great chance to review its family policy in the case of a divorce. But that did not happen. This is where, in my opinion, Norway failed. One detail: Breivik’s father wrote a book which nobody would publish.
Extrapolating this argument you can look at the position of masculinity in Norway and other European countries. If there is such a thing as “toxic masculinity” – you should not mix up that with masculinity in general. Indeed, we need sane masculinity in order to keep “toxic” masculinity down, to keep “toxic femininity” down too, and to keep society running in general. Among other things we need borders, which you can recognize as masculine. If we restore the position of masculinity, we would have less of the perverted “toxic” one and we might even have a better border/immigration policy.
(Norwegian citizen living in Germany)
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
What is really sinister to me, and no one has ever raised, is that all these young people were on a summer camp for left wing activists rathe reminiscent of another political youth organization from the 1930s
Yew maybe the explanation is that Breivik thought he was a hero pre-emptively saving the world from a future Hitler where white Norwegians were the new Jews.
The youth organization you write about is known to everyone and it only operated for 19 years before 1945. However, there was very similar, equally evil but MUCH larger youth organization that operated from 1918 to 1991 and that is not so well known in the West – Komsomol.
Lennon Ó Náraigh
2 years ago
As little as I admire Jacinda Ardern, who now presides over a New Zealand housing crisis, she made the right call in not using the name of the Christchurch shooter. I wonder is it wise therefore to continue to use the name of the Utoya shooter, and to reproduce this image of him giving a kind of military salute? Surely we can discuss his ideas and motivations without giving him what the Iron Lady would call the oxygen of publicity?
Cheryl Jones
2 years ago
I’m not sure why a ’cause for the attack’ must be found. That implies that if x Internet page or book were not available it wouldn’t have ‘made’ Breivik do it. It’s looking to blame something or someone to assuage feelings of grief or guilt. But he’s one man. In populations of millions you’re always going to get a few NUTBAGS, it’s a statistical certainty.
Lawrence Bennett
2 years ago
July 22, 2011 was a day of barbarous atrocities in Oslo and on Utoya Island. It was also a day of supreme heroism; Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen, a lesbian couple, braved the gunfire in their boat to rescue 40 young people from the waters around Utoya Island. Their valor has largely been ignored in the media. Lawrence Bennett
Thanks for the info – but I fail to see the relevance of these 2 heroic figures’ sexuality. Would you expect a lesbian couple to be less – or more – heroic than any other couple?
Cheryl Jones
2 years ago
Breivik is a loon, no doubt. But when it comes to Islam, and the shameful appeasement of it by our governments, there’s no smoke without fire.
Lawrence Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to Roger Inkpen
Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen’s rescue of the 40 children was not reported by major media in the massive coverage of that day’s events on Utoya Island. When it was reported in gay media, subsequent mea culpas in mainstream media acknowledged that the couple’s sexuality was a factor in the failure to report the women’s courageous actions.
Lawrence Bennett
I find this article disgusting. It is shameless emotional manipulation where the author focuses in detail about the actions of a depraved and evil man and tries to conflate sympathy for the victims of the tragedy to sympathy for her cause. Then she acts like anyone who disagrees with her is little different than him. Åsne Seierstad does little to even explain what political disagreements are even occurring in her country. All she does is claim that all those who have different opinions from her are racists, murderers, and neo-(you know).
…Exactly, for those born into homogeneous communities/ethnicities, and who’s personality type includes strong “disgust” for outsiders, the failure by political “liberals” to acknowledge that restrictions on foreigners need to be discussed and negotiated, is a major justification for extremism. The Taliban, ISIS etc., would appear to have many Breiviks in their midst.
Ah, so you are one of those. Shameless emotional manipulation? Check! Bare bones argument where little background is given? Check! Assumes it does not need to go into the political background of the issues? Check! Pretends like it is talking about policy when it will not even be specific? Check! Going into pornographic detail about a tragedy? Check! Rambling and unfocused? Check! Dealing with an internet idiot who accuses others of being a racist for criticizing a manipulative, incoherent, and poorly written article that a high school teacher would throw out? Double check!
Agree, Matt.
I thought it was going to be a cogent analysis if that were possible. Instead it seems to suggest the answer is more politics but only of her approved kind.
I think you’re being unfair. The comments she reports that a survivor received from some far right nutters were so depraved that it should give us pause.
My default position is that we should not shut down the speech even of the far right but sometimes people can be so cruel that I doubt that.
Yes, the article is emotive and biased and it’s clear she would probably support hate speech laws but it’s a reflection on a tragedy so terrible that I think this reasonable.
I think hate speech laws and the continued proscription of allowed opinions is part of what drives people like Breivik in the first place. Ban hate speech laws and get used to more speech, being offended, being debated.
Glad I’m not the only one thinking this.
Nobody in their right mind would condone Breivik’s actions, and it is most certainly essential that people try to understand why it happened. Which this article certainly doesn’t even scratch at.
The author doesn’t so much tap into the emotions of the victims as wallows in them. It distils these poor people’s tears and begs the readers to drink them to purify themselves – because anyone who doesn’t must be the same as Breivik and evil, evil evil right wing.
Nor does this offer any actual information as to why it may have happened. Nothing practical and realistic to tell us about the continued threat from people such as Breivik, that she suggests are everywhere. She accuses Norway of:
But offers no root causes herself either. Perhaps less time coddling bereaved families and more time doing some investigative journalism instead?
‘The country has spent a decade failing to address what caused the attack’
This article, ironically, fails in the exact same way. A deeper analysis is required on the Labour Party’s immigration policies and the resultant changing social fabric of Norwegian society.. rather than just ‘the Labour party are noble and correct, and anyone who disagrees is a far right neo-Nazi.. because Breivik!’
Agree. I was expecting some discussion on the Great Replacement theory, as Breivik was into that. Nada.
“Breivik’s views … resemble words that are spread even by parliamentarians on the Right.”
And Norwegian Labor Party views resemble words of Joseph Stalin. So what? Resemblance is not an argument for a decent and rational discussion.
Well said.
What a crap article. It clarifies nothing. After reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali book Prey, I suspect Scandinavians are experts in ignoring problems. That’s why in a country that is a member of NATO there wasn’t a helicopter available in Oslo! A Pollyanna view of life inspires Norway to receive thousands of Muslins immigrants with little education and with appalling beliefs. The far-right operates under the nose of Scandinavian authorities; they don’t even do a good job pretending. One thing though is the same everywhere in Europe, the moral superiority of the Social democrats. They might talk but they don’t listen. They don’t listen to the Muslim immigrants and don’t take them seriously, they don’t listen to people that criticized their perfect immigration policy and brand them as far-right and of course, they don’t listen to the far right either. Reality avoidance. That’s the new article the author should write, she seems to excel at it.
Very well put! The Scandinavians are naive about a key reason for their success – they are, were at least remarkably homogeneous societies by world and European standards, with the exception of some discrimination against the Lapps. The Left there have a very naive view on how easy it is yo integrate meaningfully high numbers of immigrants, especially young men, from entirely different and very illiberal societies.
BREIVIK‘S MOTHER AND THE MISSING FATHER
„Important events do not always have important causes”. This was uttered by the Norwegian philosopher and social scientist Jon Elster shortly after the 22. July assassinations (which I think is the right noun) in 2011. I am not sure if Breivik should be considered an important person. His decision (and ability) to do the assassinations had tragic immediate consequences – and it was thus important – but he and his person should perhaps not be attributed importance.
But of course one would like to look for anything beyond Breivik’s person that could offer an explanation. Two kinds of explanation could be of interest: Possible lack of adequate police (and other) protection and anything beyond Breivik’s person that might positively have influenced his atrocious deed. Seierstad finds something which is of the latter kind, but with a little of the first too. She finds some explanation in scepticism against prevailing immigration policy. I guess the consequence of this explanation would be to stamp down harder on criticism against prevailing immigration policy. She and her political associates could then hope that this criticism will die and that no new Breivik can emerge without such political views in existence.
If Norway has failed to deal with the assassinations, however, I think the failure is another one. There are other things to be found in society than scepticism to immigration policy and which may have influenced the planning and enactment of Breivik’s atrocious deed. Breivik grew up with what we could call a dysfunctional mother and without his father. This does not excuse Breivik’s deed – as long as Breivik is considered accountable (and he was found legally accountable). But even when no excuse: If the circumstances around Breivik’s upbringing are likely to have influenced his deed, and reflect general traits in society, such circumstances would certainly be of interest.
This is what Seierstad misses out completely. In the months after the assassinations Breivik’s childhood, which includes a dysfunctional mother fighting successfully to keep the father out of the child’s life, had some attention in Norway. The social-democratic society Norway had a great chance to review its family policy in the case of a divorce. But that did not happen. This is where, in my opinion, Norway failed. One detail: Breivik’s father wrote a book which nobody would publish.
Extrapolating this argument you can look at the position of masculinity in Norway and other European countries. If there is such a thing as “toxic masculinity” – you should not mix up that with masculinity in general. Indeed, we need sane masculinity in order to keep “toxic” masculinity down, to keep “toxic femininity” down too, and to keep society running in general. Among other things we need borders, which you can recognize as masculine. If we restore the position of masculinity, we would have less of the perverted “toxic” one and we might even have a better border/immigration policy.
(Norwegian citizen living in Germany)
What is really sinister to me, and no one has ever raised, is that all these young people were on a summer camp for left wing activists rathe reminiscent of another political youth organization from the 1930s
Yew maybe the explanation is that Breivik thought he was a hero pre-emptively saving the world from a future Hitler where white Norwegians were the new Jews.
The youth organization you write about is known to everyone and it only operated for 19 years before 1945. However, there was very similar, equally evil but MUCH larger youth organization that operated from 1918 to 1991 and that is not so well known in the West – Komsomol.
As little as I admire Jacinda Ardern, who now presides over a New Zealand housing crisis, she made the right call in not using the name of the Christchurch shooter. I wonder is it wise therefore to continue to use the name of the Utoya shooter, and to reproduce this image of him giving a kind of military salute? Surely we can discuss his ideas and motivations without giving him what the Iron Lady would call the oxygen of publicity?
I’m not sure why a ’cause for the attack’ must be found. That implies that if x Internet page or book were not available it wouldn’t have ‘made’ Breivik do it. It’s looking to blame something or someone to assuage feelings of grief or guilt. But he’s one man. In populations of millions you’re always going to get a few NUTBAGS, it’s a statistical certainty.
July 22, 2011 was a day of barbarous atrocities in Oslo and on Utoya Island. It was also a day of supreme heroism; Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen, a lesbian couple, braved the gunfire in their boat to rescue 40 young people from the waters around Utoya Island. Their valor has largely been ignored in the media.
Lawrence Bennett
Thanks for the info – but I fail to see the relevance of these 2 heroic figures’ sexuality. Would you expect a lesbian couple to be less – or more – heroic than any other couple?
Breivik is a loon, no doubt. But when it comes to Islam, and the shameful appeasement of it by our governments, there’s no smoke without fire.
Reply to Roger Inkpen
Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen’s rescue of the 40 children was not reported by major media in the massive coverage of that day’s events on Utoya Island. When it was reported in gay media, subsequent mea culpas in mainstream media acknowledged that the couple’s sexuality was a factor in the failure to report the women’s courageous actions.
Lawrence Bennett