Norwegian Tragedy and Slovakia

A few weeks ago a year passed since the 32-year-old Norwegian named Anders Behring Breivik committed a massacre in Oslo and on the Utoya island. After detonating explosives, which paralyzed life in the center of the Norwegian capital and killed eight people, Breivik moved to Utoya. It was the site of the summer youth camp, organized by the ruling Socialist Party of Norway. There, disguised as a policeman, Breivik murdered in cold blood further 69 people.

The whole story, its plot and course, worthy of a horror movie, shocked the world. The shock was caused mainly by the incredibly high number of victims of a single killer. It was exacerbated by the fact that this major tragedy took place in European country that was considered one of the safest in the world. Unfortunately sprees of deranged individuals, shooters and bombers, who tried to kill as many innocent people as possible are not exceptional in the recent world. Vast majority involve acts committed by mentally ill individuals, emotionally unstable persons who were “solving” their internal psychological problems or failures in their own lives in a short-circuit manner. Stories of these killers become background research material for psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists. Yet for the broader audience and the media they tend to become ephemeral shortly after they happened. The Breivik case also immediately became the subject for expert examination. Unlike most other cases of the perpetrators of similar type so far, the Breivik’s case continues to attract – and will, no doubt, continue attracting the media and public attention for some time yet.

 

Murderer – theoretician

Although the goal that the Norwegian killer set out was identical to that of all similar individuals in the past – to kill as many as possible, his motives were specific in their nature. It was evident that much more significant than all other factors (psychological, psychiatric, family, social) that influenced Breivik’s behavior, it were the ideological and political factors that make his case specific. It was not just situational, momentary motivation of an emotionally unstable person, or inadequate, short-circuit response to mental stress. Breivik, the cold-blooded killer, had a carefully prepared plan which he methodically carried out. The Utoya massacre was its logical culmination.

Breivik committed his horrible deed as a supporter (in fact the author) of a theory which had substantive content and political meaning. The theory was a sort of elaborated concept interpreting the developments inEuropeand in the world within the context of relations between religions, civilizations, cultures, and states. Breivik acted throughout not only as a bloodthirsty killer, but also as a thinker seeking to give deeper meaning to his steps. According to him, the killing of the leftist youngsters had a warning nature. For those who died, it was a punishment for having participated in the wrong things. For everyone else it had to be a warning sign that they should awaken and finally come to understand the broader context of life which they lived. In such a construct Breivik acted as ´messiah´ who delivered to the seduced society the important message at the cost of dozens of victims of his cruelty, even at the cost of his own “victim”: his voluntary surrender to the hands of the police, i.e. repressive authorities of the hated liberal-democratic state. Breivik acted here as a fighter for the right thing with a gun in hand (the sad irony is that all this had been committed by someone exempt from the conscript military service and with no military training).

Breivik’s “theoretical” ideas that became widely known only once the public had an opportunity to catch a glimpse on TV of the virtually apocalyptic images of human suffering and destruction that this mass murderer committed by his bestiality, could have hardly gone unnoticed and without response. Yet these “theories” would have hardly attracted any attention just as so many other ideas that flow in the cyberspace – on websites, social networks, discussion groups. Global communication tools provide unlimited opportunities for exchange and collection of information, for dissemination of all possible ideas, even the most bizarre and outrageous. This gives a number of insecure narcissistic individuals an opportunity to overcome their inferiority complexes, syndromes of their own insignificance by enabling them to create and spread their “original” production what ultimately boosts their ego. This “intellectual” output, driven almost exclusively by graphomaniac ambitions, usually remains unnoticed and unsolicited by the general public. Its recipients in most cases are people similar to their authors. However, the situation changes immediately when the authors of such texts commit something spectacular, “big”. Then all that they had previously written acquires particular importance and becomes part of the story. Primarily, though, it becomes subject to reactions, analyses, reflections, speculations, efforts to move it into wider contexts.

This is precisely what happened to Breivik, the ´fighter for ideas´, namely to the topics contained in the manuscript which he had written prior to committing the crime. In a specific way it also touched Slovakia and subsequently influenced local responses to his act. None of this was an accident.

 

Slovakia in Breivik’s focus: really true image?

Slovakiaappeared in the focus of Breivik’s manuscript as a reference country. He even attempted to offer a description of some Slovak political parties.

Slovakiacan be found in various amateurish texts that circulate on the internet daily. Most of them end up, metaphorically speaking, in the wastebasket and will remain there forever. Certainly, it is not the case of Breivik’s text. Let’s take a closer look at what this “messenger of truth” has written in his “study” about Slovakia.

In his more than 1,500-page-compilation Breivik presentsSlovakiaas a country that, together withSlovenia, is least indoctrinated by the ideology of multiculturalism. In his list that ranks 22 European countries and the USA on the scale from 100 to 0 points, Breivik awards Slovakia and Slovenia 90 points, the Czech Republic 80 points, Poland 70 points, his native Norway 8 points and Germany mere 1 point. He mentions three Slovak political groupings that seem to be important in terms of his core agenda of opposition to multiculturalism. These are the Slovak National Party (SNS) and the Slovak Togetherness (Slovenská pospolitosť). Breivik indiscriminately included these two entities in the category of nationalist parties. He also mentioned the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (HZDS), adding a word “anti-immigrant” with a question mark. According to Breivik, the Nordic type of people is represented inSlovakia’s current population with mere 30%. It is passing – similarly to the other European countries – through the general trend of decline (in 1900 it was allegedly 55%, in 1950 it was already 45% and by 2040 it will be only 20%). However, he predicts, at the mid- or at the end of the 21st century it will be Slovakia, together with France, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Slovenia and some other states, that will leave the European Union and will enter the union with Russia.

The amateurish nature of Breivik’s text is apparent at first glance. He does not take the trouble to justify his statements or to explain his methodology (such as the set of possible indicators). These are apodictic statements based on intuition. However, it would be easy to promptly dismiss Breivik’s positive assessment ofSlovakiaonly because it is a part of the amateurish text. Breivik’s attention – even with his apparently limited information sources – shouldn’t conceal the fact that the efforts to maintain the “indigenous” (“White”, European, Christian) character of the country are supported at the official political level inSlovakia. It is the only EU member state with no functional mosque (despite the permanent efforts of the Muslims living here to obtain a building permit), where conditions for registration of churches and religious societies in fact toughened only in order to prevent state recognition of the Muslim community, where the number of persons who were granted asylum was oscillating at minimum level for a long time. Obtaining Slovak citizenship isn’t easy either. In the recent years, the conditions for granting citizenship toughened for foreign nationals residing inSlovakia. The proportion of foreigners here is the fourth lowest in the EU, with over 60% of them citizens of other EU member states.

 

Slovakia and multiculturalism

Slovakiais, of course, multicultural country. More than 15% inhabitants belong to ethnic minorities with their specific linguistic, cultural and confessional manifestations. This is undoubtedly important for life of the Slovaks and members of minorities.Slovakiais “indoctrinated” by the natural multicultural patterns more than many other European states. However, the fact is that the so-called new minorities (especially immigrants, people with different confessional background) so far did not increase significantly the country’s cultural diversity and local people’s experience with these minorities is still rather marginal.

According to a representative opinion poll, carried out inSlovakiain 2009 by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in collaboration with the Center for Research of Ethnicity and Culture (CVEK), 44.6% of respondents thought thatSlovakiawas a country for Slovaks, and so it should remain in future. On the contrary, 51.5% of respondents stated that people of different cultures should live inSlovakiaand that it would enrich the country. 44.5% of respondents did not want culturally different people to live in their own town or village, while those who think that it would be good represented 40.5% of respondents. Although majority of respondents indicated that they had largely positive personal experience with foreigners living in Slovakia and would not mind if foreigners would live in the near or distant neighborhood with them (up 87.4% agreed that foreigners live in the country), 72.8% of respondents supported the idea of introduction of quotas for immigrants. The survey showed that 50.3% of respondents would like to see that the rights of foreigners living inSlovakia, who do not want to adjust to Slovaks, would be restricted, while 41.3% would not mind if foreigners retain their distinct cultural environment.

The IOM/CVEK survey showed that Slovakia is not at all the homogeneous landscape of views, intact by multiculturalism (not the ideology of multiculturalism per se, but the real practice of ´multiculturality´ and its experience). It illustrates Breivik’s real diletantism and ignorance when he assigned Slovakiathe 90 points on the scale. However, the supporters of cultural “purity” are not too rare to be neglected.

 

Reactions by politicians

Perhaps the most interesting aspect in the context of the Slovak response to the tragedy inOsloand Utoya were the reactions by those whom Breivik directly mentioned in his manuscript, or those who felt challenged by his thesis or by the publicized interpretations of his crime.

HZDS, which was “honored” to be mentioned in Breivik’s text, did not respond directly to this reference and stated that “the act of the fanatical and extremist murderer Breivik was the most shameful act that human being could commit; it deserved condemnation and contempt by the society in Norway, Europe and worldwide. … it is a sad confirmation of the fact that extremism knows no moral boundaries and is able to do anything in the name of achieving its heinous goals”. Subsequently, the chairman of HZDS republican council Marian Klenko authored a lengthy text published on the party’s website, in which he tried to refute the claims of the Norwegian killer that Slovakia is a country least affected by multuculturalism. HZDS representative used the discussion about Breivik’s case for unexpected internalization of this case and for its inclusion in purely domestic political discourse. He placed it into the context ofSlovakia’s independence gained in 1993, for which the HZDS credits itself: “A view of one extremist is not essential. It is worth that the idea ascribing the Slovaks unwillingness to create standard conditions for minorities, is retaken by seemingly respectable authors. They are usually those who hardly identified with the emergence of the independent state. They thus enjoy every negative mention about theSlovakRepublicand its founders.”

The SNS responded briefly and vigorously to Breivik’s horrible act and his considerations related toSlovakiaand the SNS. Its deputy leader Andrej Danko stated that “the SNS was not going to comment on the notes by a psychopath”, adding that “the party protests against the fact that anyone in anyway associates it with such a vile act that happened inNorway.” According to Danko, Breivik deserves death penalty, but not ´the “silly” 21 years in prison. Similarly to HZDS, the SNS used the opportunity to remind of its party agenda – in this particular case of the idea to reintroduce death penalty. According to the SNS, Breivik’s act has proven “that the European legislation ought to include the death penalty”.

 

Far right and ultranationalists’ discovery: Zionist and Freemasonic conspiracy

Proponents of conspiracy theories, seekers of hidden truth, extremists calling themselves the genuine Slovak patriots and nationalists again did act as expected. In their interpretation of the tragic event they stumbled on two tracks. A number of the ideas that Breivik presented in his manuscript were close to this audience (if not directly identical with their opinions). Similarly to Breivik, they also call for a defense of the genuine, White, ChristianEuropeagainst the threat of Islam, Muslims, immigrants, multiculturalism, and socialist governments. They also encourage the fight against all those who, with their multicultural policies, have caused the disastrous situation in immigration. Just visit the Slovak ultra-nationalist and extremist websites: there are enough posts with similar content and pathos. Yet Breivik killed dozens of people, he gunned down unarmed teenagers, moreover he murdered his “own” people – the Whites, the Europeans. No real truth fighter or a genuine nationalist would simply commit such a crime. This means, according to the responses from these groups, that Breivik’s act was an attempt to discredit an otherwise right matter. The nationalists discovered the traces of those, who used Breivik for compromising the essence of the good thing in order to bring about the punishment of its real supporters, in two directions. The first is Zionism, the second is Freemasonry.

The Slovak Togetherness, which was mentioned in Breivik’s text, did not respond to the reference about the grouping. The post placed on its website and signed “PK, Zvolen city” a few days after Breivik’s murderous attack, contained a warning that now the time is coming, the time of repressions against the new enemy of the “richest real extremists”. It is the time of witch-hunt against the genuine patriots, who, thanks to the Internet, can exchange uncensored information and go beyond the influence of “the most powerful of this world”. What happened inNorway, the author argued, could only be committed by “a madman or manipulated person, whose action was premeditated, and deliberately misused. Just as was the case of the Norwegian psychopath and Freemason Breivik.” In early August 2011 the Slovak Togetherness placed on its website an anonymous post which suggested that the youth camp on Utoya was a “strictly anti-Israeli” gathering of young activists known aroundNorwayby their campaign in favor of the boycott ofIsrael. It further argued that the campaign was very successful (the text was illustrated with images of anti-Israeli actions inNorway, not only on Utoya). The post demanded more thorough examination of the extent to which the mentioned fact was important “to carrying out this act and in motivating the perpetrator.” According to the site of the Slovak Togetherness, “the Freemason Breivik did not conceal his admiration ofIsraelor of his Zionist views. Perhaps it was the real reason for the choice of his victims”.

This scheme is more than understandable – as a protester against Islam, Breivik expressed his sympathy toIsrael, therefore as a “Zionist” he shot those who called for the boycott ofIsrael. This interpretation (whether offered by the Slovak Togetherness or just present in mind of Breivik and Islamophobes like him) is based on the notion that the Jewish State is fighting against Islam. There is no greater nonsense exists than such a claim.Israelfiercely battles against terrorist arms of political Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism, which seeks to destroy it (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah). Yet it does not fight against Islam as a religion. Breivik obviously wanted to see Israel, but not the way it is in reality. Israel is much more multicultural country than many European states, includingNorway. Approximately 16% ofIsrael’s population are Muslims (vast majority of them are Arabs). Their religious rights are scrupulously respected. Only a few of non-Islamic countries socially recognize religious manifestations of Muslims as highly as doesIsrael– at political, civil, social, legal, and symbolic levels. Occasional violent manifestations of Islamophobia demonstrated by radically minded individuals of Jewish descent are immediately punished by the police and trigger particularly critical and targeted responses from the supreme state officials, including the head of state and members of the cabinet.

Entries in the ultranationalist portal Beo.sk, a discussion platform for members and supporters of radical right-wing and nationalist groups, including the fighters for the European “White race”, see Freemasonic track as closely linked with the Zionist one behind Breivik’s act. One of the posts published on the site after Breivik’s massacre, pointed to his membership in Freemasonic lodge as well as in another secret society of unclear nature that was founded inLondonand imitated the Crusaders’ Order. Beo.sk stated that Breivik left theProtestant Church to which he belonged since the age of 15, because he saw that “the Norwegian Protestants openly supported free Arab Palestine and stood against the Jewish occupiers inIsrael”. The portal continued that it is not excluded, that Breivik initially attempted to infiltrate the Freemasonic movement and used the related information for his goals. Yet later, the “Brothers Masons” received him under their control, indoctrinated him with their ideas and later publicly distanced themselves from him. According to Beo.sk, the fact that Breivik publicly admitted his membership in a secret organization whose existence he would have to hide rather, could be related to the fact that he “only bluffed in order to rise fears among Islamic immigrants, or, that someone else bluffed instead of Breivik. This someone wanted to create the image of a Christian nationalist, obscurantist and bloodthirsty beasts murdering children”. The portal said that the “hunt of democracy against witches and terrorists has received a new and terrible excuse thanks to Breivik”. The “hunting” force is going to be the “anti-European, anti-nationalist and anti-Christian leftist movement of Europe”. The article concluded with really exciting questions: “Was Breivik’s act supposed to ostracize and criminalize forever the natural desire of indigenous people of Europe to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonization from the former colonies by legal means? If so, who stood behind this plan? Were there Freemasons, the allies of Israel battling against Arabs in Palestine? Or was it really a kind of an emerging initiative of “European resistance movement”?

Such formulations offer an illustrative example of developing a conspiracy discourse as presented by the Slovak radical nationalists and the far-right. Breivik here acts as a tool, consciously or inadvertently used by Freemasons and Zionists (with Israel behind, of course, as it simply can not be otherwise) to provoke leftist “multi-culti” attacks against the genuine, White nationally-oriented Europeans. Breivik certainly would not expect such an interpretation of his ”heroic” act from those who were with him in de facto high ideological harmony and who received so much hopeful assessment in his manuscript. Had Breivik known about it, he would be certainly very disappointed.

In the meantime, the investigation of Breivik’s killing has been completed, the conviction will be issued by the court in Oslo in late August 2012. No Zionist-Freemasonic plot behind the bloody crime was detected. It, indeed, will not discourage the proponents of conspiracy theories from their sincere belief in their own truth. It can even strengthen their conviction about how deeply this track is hidden.

Grigorij Mesežnikov

Categories Analyses, News, Slovakia | Tags: | Posted on November 5, 2012

Social Networks: RSS Facebook Twitter Google del.icio.us Stumble Upon Digg Reddit

Comments are closed.

close window

Service Times & Directions

Weekend Masses in English

Saturday Morning: 8:00 am

Saturday Vigil: 4:30 pm

Sunday: 7:30 am, 9:00 am, 10:45 am,
12:30 pm, 5:30 pm

Weekend Masses In Español

Saturday Vigil: 6:15pm

Sunday: 9:00am, 7:15pm

Weekday Morning Masses

Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday: 8:30 am

map
6654 Main Street
Wonderland, AK 45202
(513) 555-7856