Where credit is due

Right after the Breivik massacre, I and others were convinced that the Left was going to use the incident to vilify, and perhaps legally persecute, the entire Right.  I don’t know what the situation is like in Europe (perhaps some of my European readers can fill me in), but in America this seems not to have happened so far.  The Left has largely refrained from exploiting this atrocity for cheap political gain.  Perhaps they’re just waiting until after a suitable period of mourning, but even if that would betoken a decency in our enemies that should be acknowledged.

Another thing.  Justin has been doing some great analysis of the terrorist’s manifesto; he’s really putting the rest of us to shame.  In particular, he’s explained the point that had seemed most perplexing to the rest of us:  how could Brievik not see that his massacre would hurt the anti-immigration cause politically?  In fact, the manifesto explains that increasing popular support to win elections wasn’t his goal.  His goal was prompt overreactions and radicalize both sides.

3 Responses

  1. Well, but Justin calls this “diabolical genius,” instead of what it is: bog-standard asymmetric warfare. The PLO wants Israel to be mean to rank-and-file Palestinians. The IRA wanted the various unionist forces to be mean to rank-and-file Catholics. The North Vietnamese Army wanted the Americans to be mean to South Vietnamese peasants. Weak sides use terrorism because terrorism works, or, more accurately, works better than the alternatives available to them.

    This isn’t the only purpose of terrorism, of course. Scaring the enemy is another such. But, the terrorist perceives that the “cycle of violence” benefits his side: terror demoralizes his enemy while overreaction drives moderates into the terrorist’s radical camp and legitimizes the next terrorist attack.

    Obviously, we can’t fight this way, because it is an unjust way to fight. And we should be skeptical that it will work here (is the Norwegian government really going to commit atrocities, now?). But there is nothing especially remarkable about it (about the strategy I mean).

  2. Here in Sweden the whole incident has been shamelessly used to further the goals of the left. “Blonde terrorism in Christian guise”; “When terrorism is blonde and Christian”; “Oslo attacks show we need more political correctness” (sic); are some of the headlines, and blame is being heaped onto our “far-right” party the Sweden Democrats and similar parties in Scandinavia. These are of course parties that have a lot in common with the opinions he expressed, and the ill disguised glee of the media is sickening. Ah well, if your theory that the muslims are Europe’s best hope is correct, then things should be taking a turn for the better very soon in Sweden.

  3. ” In fact, the manifesto explains that increasing popular support to win elections wasn’t his goal. His goal was prompt overreactions and radicalize both sides.”

    It was absolutely obvious to me from the start that this would be the result, and I rather expected that was his intent. I do not say it is a good thing (it is not something I would have chosen to do), but I am open to the possibility that it may have been a necessary one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: