Far right and far wrong
Francis Sedgemore, Saturday 23 July 2011 at 13:48 UTC
I see that English-language media have begun to litter their reports of yesterday’s mass killings in Oslo and Utøya with reference to the blond, blue-eyed Norwegian alleged perpetrator being a “neo-Nazi”. The soaraway Sun‘s first edition front page described it as an “al-Qaeda massacre”.
Going by Norwegian-language news reports, what we know with some degree of certainty is that Anders Behring Breivik was a member of the Fremskrittspartiet (Progress Party) until his political views became a little too extreme for an organisation with a similar ideological basis and praxis to that of the French National Front and Danish People’s Party. That is, non-violent, petite-bourgeois constitutional nationalism. Racist, certainly, but not neo-Nazi. We are talking instead about a thoroughly domestic fascism.
Norwegian neo-Nazism is an insignificant political force, and quite unlike the sizeable movement which exists across the border in Sweden: a country that was officially neutral, but which in part collaborated with Nazi Germany during the second world war. Norway suffered greatly under German occupation, and domestic collaborators had a very hard time for many years following the end of the war. Norwegians developed a resistance mentality during the war years, and to some degree this continues.
The people of Norway today are very European in outlook, and from my perspective they are more internationalist than their British neighbours. At the same time, however, the Norwegians keep a certain distance. From everyone. You could interpret this as nationalism, but in my view this would be a mistake. There do exist hard-core Norwegian nationalists, but the prevailing ideology is one of social democracy in one country, and it is this left-of-centre political and cultural hegemony which leads some to develop a visceral hatred of the ruling class, the youth of which was represented in force on Utøya.
Scandinavian social democracy is a peculiar thing. It has created an open, democratic and entrepreneurial society in which the market is relatively free, but the state is central, and seen by the majority as being both useful and benevolent. At the same time, the state is destroying the old order by stealth from within. For example, the Lutheran church has been thoroughly co-opted by the state, and is being throttled by it. The same goes for other institutions of Scandinavian society, and what we have is social engineering that does not require blood sacrifice. But the social democratic hegemony is incomplete, and in some quarters there is resistance to it.
Breivik’s killing of scores of Labour Party youth activists was an act of evil (or “moral insanity”, to use philosopher Anthony Grayling’s preferred term). The details of the perpetrator’s political views are of only limited significance, but significant they are, and one should avoid labels such as “neo-Nazi” unless their use can be backed up by evidence. Breivik’s political heroes are said to include Winston Churchill and Geert Wilders, but, from what I can see, the most interesting influence is that of Max Manus, the Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance fighter and saboteur. This ties in with what I said earlier today about the Norwegians being a hardy people. Hardy, handy, and independent to the core.
Combine hero worship of max Manus and a fear of Norway’s social democratic consensus with a malfunctioning brain and flipped moral compass, and one can conceivably end up with individuals prepared to slaughter innocents in large numbers. Is this what has happened with Anders Breivik? Time and psychiatric reports will tell, but for now one should avoid over-interpretation and extrapolation. Whatever the political and cultural background, what happened yesterday was that an individual adult human being made a free choice, and carried out actions for which he is personally responsible.
Feed the writer! 
Saturday 23 July 2011 at 15:03 UTC
I would have thought that a neo-nazi would declare a certain admiration for Vidkun Quisling, if anyone.
Saturday 23 July 2011 at 15:23 UTC
No self-respecting Norwegian neo-Nazi would dare do such a reckless thing, lest they end up in front of a (non-judicial) firing squad.
Thursday 28 July 2011 at 20:40 UTC
On another site, a commenter asked why should a country which suffered under the Nazis produce someone like Breivik. My response was to suggest that the question could and should be addressed to other west European societies such as Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France, which have all produced nasty neo-Nazi/fascist/racist organisations despite experiencing Nazi occupation.
Or perhaps it’s _because_ of the occupation (admiration of the victor/strong man and all that).
Thursday 28 July 2011 at 20:49 UTC
It’s an interesting question, and I don’t have much to offer by way of an answer. Perhaps it’s because human beings are fickle creatures, with a short attention span and general historical blindness.
Sunday 31 July 2011 at 00:44 UTC
I was a sociologist before retirement, so stepping into the waters of psychology (even though they are clear and refreshing) is risky. Nevertheless, the sociology of mass movements does provide insights into why people come together in movements which either insist that, having joined, independent thought must be checked at the door (and this appears true of many such movements, on both the left and right), or provide simple and indeed simplistic answers to the questions of what’s wrong here. (This latter may be much the same, in effect, as the former.)
The independent of thought look, rather, for arenas where the answers are arrived at by debate, resort to evidence and the use of logic and rational thought pathways. Plainly, neither Islamist/Jihadist organisations, nor far right fascist/neo-nazi ditto, let alone far left perversions of Marxist thought leave much, if any, wiggle room. Breivik plainly falls into the fascist/neo-nazi grouping (whatever the particular elements of his psychological make-up) and those who fall victim to fanatical ideologies are prepared to carry out extreme acts because the consequences in terms of the human cost are irrelevant in terms of the desired ends: the ends very much justify the means: Nazism, Italian Fascism, Bolshevism, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, et al, ad nauseam. But not the democratic parties of the relative centre: the reverse, rather: the means justify what ends are allowable and desirable, but never at any cost.
I wish to demur from Francis’s suggestion that we, collectively, are incapable of developing a long attention span or are guilty of general historical blindness. It’s no error that Breivik targeted the youth of the Norwegian Labour Party: I bet they had collective long attention spans and knew very well the history of their country – just like their equivalents in other democratic youth movements.
Apologies for length.
Sunday 31 July 2011 at 01:02 UTC
No need to apologise, Brian, for yours was an interesting comment.
My own comment was written in the immediate aftermath of the Oslo bombing and Utøya massacre, before anyone had a clue what was going on (but that didn’t stop some pontificating on the matter). Now that a semi-coherent picture is beginning to emerge, I’ve adapted my thinking in light of the evidence presented.
Breivik certainly is a fascist, but going by his manifesto I would say that he is not a fascist of the neo-Nazi type. There is something else going on here, and it think it ties in with Breivik’s association with the EDL and similar groups. The problem is that the paradigm of this new fascism has not yet been propery defined. Note that I’m talking here about the ideology, not the politically-inspired actions of a psychopathic killer.
As for attention spans, long or otherwise, you can put my previous words down to a manifestation of borderline misanthropy on my part. Some people do indeed retain a long attention span and sense of history, and the Utøya campers may fall into that section of humanity. But you must remember that these young people are part of he political aristocracy of Norwegian society, and thus unrepresentative of society at large. Decent, intelligent, liberal-minded and well-intentioned youths, I’m sure, but not exactly part of the mass.
Sunday 31 July 2011 at 22:52 UTC
Umm…let me start at the end of your comment, Francis. I believe deeply that the ability to sustain long attention spans may have little to do with formal education and/or membership of, specifically, democratic elite groups. For decades, UK trades unions recruited from “below”, and many of the famous trade union leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries had little formal education (certainly prior to such institutions as Ruskin College and the Workers Educational Association). Yet they could hold their own with many of the more highly educated political leaders of their day: no-one would dream of calling Herbert Morrison, Ernest Bevin and (my favourite) Aneurin Bevan stupid or pushovers.
And even at lower levels, at the (literal) street level, these people knew what was needed and how to achieve it: they needed no university educated, middle-class do gooders to take on and defeat Mosley in the East End of London, nor to organise the back-up (such as first aid stations) to outwit the fascists and the police both.
Sorry for the lecture, but my father was at the Battle of Cable Street and I heard all about it!
Years ago, while still a grammar school boy, we (collectively) were told off by a Times (1960-style) technical worker for our disdain for the old style Daily Mirror, which got over complicated ideas in words of no more than three syllables and short sentences to people just as intelligent as us, but lacking our formal education. We are in permanent danger of selling these people short: just look at the success of “Hope not Hate” campaign run by Searchlight, the trade unions and local, multicultural organisations in fighting off the BNP, EDL, etc.
Basically, I have long believed that if we dismiss the many in our society, they will find comfort where they will: and the Nick Griffin’s of this world are past-masters at recruiting the disaffected. The likes of Breivik may well be unsaveable – there will will always be some so damaged, for whatever reason, or with such unusual mind-sets that they cannot be reached by the rational – but we shouldn’t despair. I’d be willing to bet that many of those at the island had started off from “unpromising” social backgrounds: ethnic minorities, lower-class parents, apparently little hope of social mobility – but the Norwegian Labour Party spotted them and offered them a life-line.
Okay, it’s easier in a small society than in one of our size, but still…
To return to the start of your comment and the question of how we, collectively, cope with manifestations of the appalling such as this. In order not to provide an oh-so-convenient knee-jerk reaction, which is so tempting, for the moment I’ll content myself with the following: after 7/7, we were with some friends. “She” (it doesn’t apply to “he” in this case) is usually a model of the conventional liberal, middle-class, highly educated, centrist citizen-voter. However, she was so upset at the events that had occurred that she was prepared to sanction restrictions that would, in my view, threaten to do the terrorists job for them and make what we have left not worth defending, because is would no longer be a liberal society. In her defence, she did (and does) have young children and was being defensive of their welfare.
The question of ideology will have to wait!
BTW, Francis, I hope we’re not just talking to each other here!
Sunday 31 July 2011 at 23:47 UTC
Brian – I realise full well, and this partly from personal experience, that intellectual capacity has little to do with social background and the quality one’s formal education. It has largely to do with will and commitment, and this is what brings success for those who self-educate, or train through adult continuing education courses, the Workers Educational Association, etc.
It was through my membership of the Communist Party, and association with working class intellectuals who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, that I – a middle-class high school failure – got my act together as a mature student in my late twenties.
I also understand the value of tabloid media such as the old Daily Mirror, and campaign groups such as Hope not Hate. As a science communicator I would rather work for a red-top with integrity than, say, the Grauniad.
As for talking to each other, this is hardly a mass-Market blog, but it is read by more than three miserablist old men and a malcontent dog. It’s just that the majority of regular readers never comment on blogs.
As for the Utøya campers, some of them may be from lower-class families, but they have been extracted from he mass, to become part of the elite of Norwegian society. That is how Scandinavian social democracy operates.