Lone gunmen and fatal ideologies

Many of the media headlines regarding the recent shootings in Norway have referred to the shooter, Anders Breivik, as a “mad man”. His criminal defence team have also been quick to describe him as being “insane”,  a definition which is likely to benefit their defence strategy. In Australia, our own experience of mass murder involved a man who has since been declared insane and institutionalised.

The labelling of someone who has perpetrated such a horrific crime as “insane” is understandable. The murder of children is something so far outside the ken of a sane person that we can’t help viewing anyone who could commit such an act as being “wrong”. That a person could consciously and rationally develop a strategy to orchestrate human suffering is alien, aberrant, and is so considered insane.

However, Breivik appears to have exercised an extreme degree of premeditation in carrying out his murders. Planning for the massacre, according to media reports, began many years prior to the actual event. Explosives and weaponry were researched, purchased, processed and stored meticulously. Breivik himself kept diary style records, which demonstrate a mind whose capacity for rational processing was in perfect order.

This is not the working of a delusional or deranged individual. This was planned, calculated and carried out with horrific precision. To define these actions as insane takes away from the evil of what was done. Not only that, it prevents us from understanding the fact that his murders are in fact the ultimate and revoltingly “rational” expression of a specific strain of political ideology.

Breivik’s ideology is one of those which advocates the murder of innocents as part of a greater “struggle”, or achievement of “a greater good”. The Islamic jihadists are another example, advocating murder to achieve a caliphate, while extreme leftist movements throughout history have also promoted slaughter of class enemies as a legitimate aspect of the struggle for a socialist utopia.

In this case, the atrocities carried out in Norway were the final and horrifyingly rational expression of the ideology of extreme right wing nationalism. The “greater good” in this case was a Europe “free from Islam”, while the murders themselves were part of the struggle toward this utopian goal as they would dramatically weaken the demographic base of one of the prime ideological “enemies” of the struggle.

To excuse Breivik’s actions as being the lone act of an “insane” man detaches them from the political process which spawned them. Murder is the final and ultimately rational expression of any ideology which sees its final goal as justifying any means of achievement. Anders Breivik massacred children in a wholly “rational” way, using bullets which fragmented inside bodies to cause maximum damage. He did this of his own free will. The ideology to which he subscribed absolved him of any guilt, just as the jihadists who massacred New Yorkers, or the Maoists who massacred Nepalese villagers, were absolved of their guilt by their respective ideologies.

But maybe, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time, perhaps a more accurate candidate for the definition of insane are these extremist ideologies themselves. Time and time again anarchist, socialist, nationalist, fascist and religious extremist movements have sought to force their repugnant ideologies on others through murder. Time and time again their actions have been met with revulsion, ultimately resulting in their marginalisation and extermination. We can only hope that is what will happen in this instance, and that the evil of the ideology which prompted Breivik to commit murder is recognised, and properly reviled.

Angry protesters

Watching the news last night, there was footage of Tony Abbot and Julia Gillard facing protestors at various town hall type meetings. In both cases these protesters exercised their democratic right to question the policy position taken by either politician. Both protestors offering critiques were middle aged women, both of them spoke their minds freely and spoke directly to the relevant politicians.

The difference between the two was that while the woman criticising the prime minister was allowed to have her say and then walk away, the woman criticising the leader of the opposition was shouted down by anti-carbon tax protesters. She was then heckled and shoved, and followed down the street and taunted by a middle aged man who was close to twice her size. The footage ended with the man standing over her, smirking, while she cowered, calling for help on her phone, saying “I’m scared”. The police were eventually called to prevent the situation going any further.

To me, this little tableau was representative of the extreme political (or ideological) polarisation that is becoming increasingly the norm in Australia. Arguably, we haven’t seen such political antagonism since 1975. That’s a fairly large call to make, but, as highlighted by Michelle Grattan in today’s SMH, is there anyone who doesn’t think that the Libs would block supply if they had the numbers?  I think that the antagonism over carbon pricing has escalated to such a point that this is now an outcome that could quite realistically occur (if they had the numbers).

I’m personally struggling with this polarisation. I’ve been brought up toward the “left” side of the spectrum and I try to constantly consider how this shapes the way I interpret facts. I know that the people on the “other side” of the fence have been similarly raised according to a particular ideological world-view, and that they honestly believe that they are doing what they think is right. And yet, when I see footage like that described above, I can’t help yelling at the TV screen and reducing all those who have a different opinion to me on this issue to mindless, bullying “baddies”.

Perhaps it would be best if something similar to the dismissal were to occur. A mass cathartic expression of the political stresses that otherwise manifest in these futile little displays of antagonism. Problem is, I don’t know whether my programming would let me sit idly by and let it happen, or whether I’d be out there, taking a swing at all those old bullying fucks who think it’s OK to shove and intimidate a middle aged lady who has a different set of opinions to their own.