Uppdaterat: Det här med Utøya

Tragiskt nog har högern på sina håll avsevärda problem med att tolka det rasistiska terroristdåd som norrmannen Anders Behring Breivik gjorde sig skyldig till för två år sedan, då han saklöst slaktade 77 människor, varav 69 unga socialdemokrater på AUFs sommarläger på Utøya.

Här i Sverige har förstås de flesta fadäserna varit Sverigedemokraternas. Efter att initialt med ryggmärgen försökt skylla händelserna på muslimerna:

SD skyller på musilmerna

Så försökte partiet desperat säga att även de tog avstånd från Breiviks attentat, å ena sidan. Å andra sidan menade partiets ”fotsoldater” att Breiviks attentat nog ändå var att skylla på muslimerna; resonemanget gick som följer: om det inte funnits någon ”massinvandring” av muslimer till Norge så skulle inte Breivik känt sig nödgad att slakta socialdemokrater på Utøya. Att detta resonemang är övermåttan cyniskt behöver knappast påpekats.

På andra håll menade sverigedemokratiska ”fotsoldater” att Sverigedemokraterna inte alls reperesenterade Breiviks världsbild: de menade ju bara att islam skulle förbjudas i Sverige och att muslimer skulle deporteras, och att muslimernas islamifiering av de Skandinaviska länderna bedrivs genom nativitet; det vill säga muslimska kvinnor skapar ett demografiskt överskott genom att föda barn. Precis det Breivik skriver i sitt manifest vars innehåll överensstämmer med många av de åsikter Sverigedemokrater har ventilerat i offentligheten.

Nu kanske läsaren tror att Sveriges största fascistparti distanserat sig från Breivik. Men inte då – ett år senare förekom Sverigedemokratiska krav på att Breivik skulle få politisk asyl i Sverige.

 

Tråkigt nog är det inte bara den svenska ultrahögern som har problem med Utøya.

I morse uppmärksammades jag av en god vän på följande stycke ur Dagens Nyheters ledartext:

”Estoniakatastrofen, tsunamin i Sydostasien och Breiviks terrordåd är alla historiska händelser med många dödsoffer. Viljan att få veta vad som hänt, och vad som går att göra för att det aldrig ska hända igen, är förstås enorm i ett första skede.”

Som om Breiviks terrordåd skulle vara ett slags naturkatastrof? Det är han givetvis INTE. Han är istället en politiskt motiverad ras och klasskrigare, i kamp mot arbetarklassen för överklassen (ingen tillfällighet att han kallar sig själv ‘riddare’)

Lägg till Holocaust, efter Breiviks terrordåd så kan envar se hur övermaga korkat stycket är. Nu hoppas jag att någon talar ledarskribenten tillrätta; förklarar att det finns en mycket stor skillnad på människoorsakade massmord och naturkatastrofer. Tills dess är detta bara ännu ett exempel på högerns oförmåga att handskas med en blond blåögd terrorist.

This entry was posted in Bloggar, Joacim. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Uppdaterat: Det här med Utøya

  1. Ernst Mecke says:

    Yes, the political Right DOES have its difficulties with crimes committed by the Right. In Germany the blindness of the police when the NSU (= Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund) was killing Turks is a typical example. Presumably the mechanism is that members of the police (who have chosen their profession because they think that society needs to be protected against people who are not thinking/looking/behaving like themselves = the police) are unable to see others, who also are active against people who do not think/look/behave like the police, as ”real” criminals (rather, they will see them as ”misguided and/or overeager young people who basically do have the right values”). And the same will be true for the whole political Right. And as a phenomenon like Breivik is (in fact) completely out of their range of imagination, he is then put into the same category as other ”catastrophies” …
    As to the idea that Breivik were fighting the working class in the interest of the upper class, I do have my doubts. E.g. I have difficulties to imagine him shooting up an assembly of skinheads (who usually do not belong to the upper class). Rather, and having read a few books by Jan Guillou, I guess that Breivik sees himself as a lone hero in line with Guillou’s Arn Magnusson (Tempelriddaren) or ”Coq Rouge” alias Hamilton (remember, e.g., Breivik’s wish to appear in court in a frock coat when pleading his case). Guillou’s heroes are of course not anti-muslim (quite the opposite), and a somewhat similar type of hero can be taken from any classical western (”A man got to do what a man’s got to do …”), but the fact that Breivik had to act in a modern environment and had to do long-run and very careful preparations, and was then acting with a cruel consequence which goes far beyond anything we know from classical westerns, does make him clearly more similar to one of the elite fighters whom Guillou is celebrating than to a cowboy …

    • Joacim Blomqvist says:

      Thanx for a thoughtfull replay to this text Ernst.
      As I see it – Breivik lacks a deeper class analysis. But as I tend to argue, Breivik associate him self not with Arn (after all – Arn becomes friend with Sal’adin and brings muslem friends of his back to Sweden – and I don’t think that Breivik is pleased with that. Nor do I think Breivik is a fan of Coq Rouge – agent Hamilton fights fascists with he’s fists and attacks Israel alongside with palestinians in a sub). but with a more sinister templar-knight. He simply want to defend class intrests misstaken for race-values against anyone that are opposing them. At Utöija he chose to kill anyone that can be associated with the Socialdemoctratic party (that he thinks threats the interests of power, that is both foreigners and working class youth).

  2. Ernst Mecke says:

    Thank you for your fast reply.
    Well, yes … . I do agree that Breivik is presumably lacking any deeper class analysis. And to describe him as a sinister type of Knight Templar is a pretty good description. And that he has a deep dislike for anybody who is welcoming immigrants and also anti-elite in general (while he is condering himself as a representative of an elite – such as a Knight Templar) makes of course Social Democrats of any type his favourite target.
    But I do not really understand why fighting immigrants should be so very much in the interest of the ruling class: they are willing to work, they do not demand much, they do not claim political rights to the same extent as established Norwegian citizens do, they consume … . Of course it may well be in the interest of the ruling class to mob immigrants at short intervals (just to keep them submissive), but I do not see what uses the ruling class should have from keeping them out altogether.
    Perhaps we can assume that the majority of the ruling class entertains a racial prejudice (of which Breivik could be considered an ”agent”), but basically I believe that racism is rooted in very old roots of human behaviour: everybody has a spontaneous tendency to flatter him/herself and to think ”deviants” from the established ways of how ”any reasonable person” looks and behaves as ”inferior”. Such results then in things like the Indish caste system (with all its cruel details) and in all those forms of self-righteous indignation about the mere idea that those ”deviants” should have equal rights and possibilities …
    Altogether, I think that it means to overstretch class analysis if one tries to use it as the main explanation for racism. It is possible that we disagree in our ideas what class at all IS – my idea comes from Freudarxism (which – me being a biologist – is based in Darwin’s theory, which I think, though, very closely related to Marx’s theory). But if you think it useful, we can well discuss this point further.

Kommentera

E-postadressen publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *