A world of hatred
Initial reactions to the attacks in Norway showed a “clash of
civilisations” exists but not in the way many understood
BY AHMED MOOR
The Norwegian terrorist who murdered more than 90
innocent civilians – many of whom were teenagers – did not act alone. Or
rather, he acted within a cultural and political context that
legitimises his fearful and hate-infested world view. It is now clear
that Anders Behring Breivik was exposed to large amounts of right-wing
propaganda. This tragedy underlines the urgency with which normal people
around the world must combat fundamentalist nationalists and chauvinists
wherever they may be. But it also demonstrates the extent to which
reactionary bigotry has infected mainstream thought.
Many reacted to the news from Oslo with wide eyes and a
pointed finger. The most animated reactionaries took to the pages of
The New York Times comment section to issue sweeping
proclamations about the Clash of Civilisations and something called “the
cult of death”. In many ways, readers were merely reinforcing the
paper’s woefully editorialised reportage. As Glenn Greenwald helpfully
pointed out, the editors of the NYT – America’s allegedly liberal
newspaper – reserve the word “terrorist” solely for use in conjunction
with the word “Muslim”.
When news emerged that the perpetrator of the murders –
the terrorist – was a man whose religion and skin pigmentation closely
resembled those of the editors of the NYT, the story changed. The
terrorist became a deranged “Christian extremist” whose tactics clearly
mirrored “al-Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks”. In that way, the
paper linked the terrorist with Muslims despite his strong antipathy for
them.
Blame for the western media’s panting pursuit of a
non-existent Muslim trigger man quickly focused on the feckless,
credulous, overeager and inept source of the NYT’s journalistic
failure. Will McCants – proclaimed by one of his acolytes to be at the
top of a “list of five terrorism experts you can trust” – was quickly
discredited. In his defence, he only sought to affirm the confirmation
bias that he and the editors of the NYT suffer from. The meme
that underpins their world view goes something like this: “Muslims are
bad. When bad things happen, Muslims are responsible.” This is a
mainstream view in the US today; it cuts across party lines.
Shaping both sides of the narrative
That the purported American left maintains this bigoted
outlook is an indication of how successful the right has been at
constructing the stage upon which public debate is conducted. Two main
anti-Muslim talking points are now taken for granted in this country:
First, all terrorists in the West are Muslims; second, we are in the
midst of a global civilisational war. These are the dual planks upon
which Uncle Sam squats in his Afghani outhouse.
Objective sources have done an excellent job of
discrediting the first of the two claims that inform the 21st century
American experience. The second point however – that we are engaged in a
war of civilisations – is one that I agree with. But the combatants are
not Islam and the West. Instead, the war is between the normal, sane
people of the world and the right-wing zealots who see doom,
destruction, hellfire and god’s will at every turn.
Anders Behring Breivik, Mohamed Atta and Baruch
Goldstein are all cut from the same rotten cloth. Anwar Al-Awlaki and
Glenn Beck – the peddlers of the faith – all share the same core
afflictions. These men are insecure, violently inclined and illiberal.
The outside world scares them. They hate homosexuals and strong women.
For them, difference is a source of insecurity. Their values are
militarism, conformism, chauvinism and jingoism. Worst of all, they seek
to pressure us into compliance while they work frantically to destroy
themselves – and the rest of us with them.
The war continues
All indications are that the hatemongers – who are on
the same side of this war, irrespective of religion – are winning in
America. The unreflective, superficial, wan editors of the NYT
are an indication of just how successful the right wing has been at
eviscerating the left.
But not all liberals are created equal.
It is a credit to the Norwegian people that their prime
minister did not respond to the terror attack with scorched-earth
rhetoric or a carpet bombing campaign. A real liberal with strong
principles, he did not succumb to fear or vicious speculation. Instead,
he pledged to strengthen Norwegian democracy. This is what he said
shortly after the terrorist attacks: “Our answer is more democracy, more
openness to show that we will not be stopped by this kind of violence.”
His words illustrate the difference between a society that takes liberal
principles as a foundation and one that treats them as an inconvenient
luxury.
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s words make it clear
where Norway stands on the global war on right-wing extremism. Where
does the US stand?
(Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian American freelance
journalist based in Cairo. He was born in the Gaza Strip, Palestine.
This article was posted on the Al Jazeera website on July 24, 2011.)
Courtesy: Al Jazeera;
http://english.aljazeera.net