Thus Spake Zarathustra – A look at the Norway massacre
By Own Correspondent – Is he happy? Is he sad? Is he excited after the bloody massacre in one of the quietest corners of the world? Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of such a heinous crime, has certainly turned into a despicable monster for people and a bestselling ‘story’ for newspapers worldwide. Police are yet to establish a logical connection between the different phases of his life that would culminate into a revenge saga of this proportion. Loony! That’s what we all consider what he is. Even if he is mad, there remains the question unattended—why? Let’s have a look at his ‘bio-data’, at least as much I could gather from my most perfunctory and supercilious reading of some leading newspapers published in the UK. Anders Breivik is a 32-year-old farmer who has massacred a large number of people in Norway, 76 in the latest counting. Most of his victims were young, Geir Lippestad, his lawyer, says Breivik is ‘insane’. Breivik comes from the Norwegian middle-class with all its privileges. Most of his former schoolmates are successful professionals today. Breivik himself, according to some, was an ‘alert’ and normal kid, though some chose to give a different version of his school-life—a loner. Now, let’s take a quick peek into his family background before we look up into the questions concerning his livelihood. Anders Breivik is a product of a broken family. His biological parents divorced when he was just one year old. He was born in February 1979 to Jens Breivik, a diplomat and Wenche Breivik, a nurse. His mother remarried — a fact which he couldn’t accept easily. Anders Breivik apparently has nothing against his stepfather, though there are signs of discomfort about his mother’s second marriage and her ailment which she contracted after the second marriage. Does that make a monster out of a human being?
Now, let’s look at his career path. That’s an area still shrouded in mystery. Various sources have confirmed that Anders has had a brief stint with the army. Since then, and until he settled down in his mother’s house and took to farming, he had been some sort of a job-hopper. There are contradictory claims that he used to run a computer company successfully during this transitory phase and that he worked in low-paid call centres. Does that produce a criminal without any clear personal vendetta? It is difficult to state what exactly he did for a living those days, but surprisingly, his bank statement shows that a flabby sum of €80,000 was credited to his account. That’s sufficient money in Norway to provide a life without work. From a rumuour-riddled probe into his very average school life, we have something here to cite: He fought with a gang of Pakistanis and was apparently appalled by the violence of his opposition. Such incidents can instill some illogical grudge, but not enough to convert a human into an unprovoked killer of 76 people.
As Anders Breivik grew up, he never had much of a personal life that could cater to the tabloids after the horrifying carnage. He never had a girlfriend or any long-standing sex partner. There are speculative stories to create something for the tabloids even out of nothing—that he had no partner means he was suffering from sexual inadequacy and so he fired at and bombed so many people
For others, who do not want to settle for such gross simplification, let’s take a look at his political views. Anders’s parents supported Norwegian Labour Party. Breivik differed from them significantly on this and joined the rightwing Progress Party when he was serving the army. Anders Breivik apparently hated the liberalism and the inclusive and permissive society structure under the Labour Party. But his anti-establishment urge made him sever even his Progress Party links and turn to far-right beliefs.
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, the popular leader of Norwegian Labour Party, has reportedly said in the wake of the mass killing, “We are a small country. But we are a proud people and we will stand by what we have. Our response is more democracy, more openness and more humanity.” Let’s try to understand what he must have meant by democracy, openness and humanity. Norway has a consensus-bound society that takes pride in showcasing liberal values of tolerance. Such a society works primarily on consensus. And what about the soul what does not willingly fall in line with the consensus about good living. He/She is a sure misfit who can be treated by a doctor to become one among the rest. And what if that treatment does not work? He/she inculcates a grudge against all and sundry. The grudge may choose or permeate through any existing or even imaginary channel, stifled by a lack of ways of expression that should not go unnoticed. Was it a cause that Anders was pursuing, or was it a mere grudge in him that was looking for a moral excuse to explode in a way different from any routine protest. Why did he never stick to a job, despite clear signs of a lucrative income cosseted in his bank account? Was it this difference he was seeking, which a consensus-bound society fails to offer? Was it the lack of even the idea of a different life that he could at least try to pursue, but his impressionable years in school failed to make him imagine something similar? The Telegraph and The Guardian seem more concerned about Breivik’s inspiration, whether it’s the ultra-right leader Paul Ray or his English Defense League (EDL) or if there exists any Richard who Anders Breivik claims to be his mentor. This common concern comes despite their differing political allegiances. Is it this lack of recognition of difference that fertilized the illusory anti-Muslim war?
The Independent quotes Mikal Hem, a political columnist who writes for Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper, saying, “A lot of people don’t want Breivik to be given any recognition at all. Norwegians are acutely aware that he wants attention and there is a sense that people will not give him what he wants.” Doesn’t this seem to be closer to the point than any of the speculations rife with the impact of ultra-right conspiracy theories? He clearly seems to be someone struggling desperately and vaguely for recognition as someone who is different. Anders Breivik has always remained an unremarkable child and youth in a near perfect socialist structure and did not try to do what it takes to be remarkable in a consensus-bound country. May be he did not have his own ideas, but surely he did not share the general ideas a citizen of Norway is supposed to share.
The purpose of the gathering that he wanted to weed out from the earth adds to the same concern. They victims had gathered to enjoy state recognition for their achievements of being nice and promising in Norway. Is his grudge against the Muslim immigrants a result of the same of recognition by the state, when he puts it against the thought that must have permeated through his warped mind—even the outsiders are recognised, but not a family member who is different? Nobody knows, but surely leaves a huge scope of introspection for Norway as well other who wants to be a Norway—a peaceful consensus-based society with a standardised and uniform way of living. Extreme form of egalitarianism and lack of issue-based political conflict among rival parties may result in misfits turning into human bombs like Anders Breivik. Let’s not forget, he tried the Progress Party once!
