I want to start by expressing my condolenses to those who lost a friend or a loved one in Oslo or Utøya, and to the whole Norwegian nation.
An hour before the killing started ABB (the gunman) sent out a 1500 page manifesto on the internet. Some media outlets have been linking to the document or offering it for download. I have very mixed feelings about that.
On the one hand, we want to stand and fight for the freedom of speech. Like Norway's PM Jens Stoltenberg said: "We will retaliate with more democracy, transparency & openness" Considering that, we absolutely should publish the manifesto, encourage the discussion and dialogue. But should we really?
If we look at the content of the manifesto we see that it is full of hate. It's a manuscript for terrorism. It is designed to be a guide for other extremists on how to blow up nuclear power plants, how to kill women in the field, how to run a single man sleeper cell, descriptions of how he trained and brain washed him self. He says he went to Liberia in 2002 and told his friend that he was finding ways to smuggle blood diamonds, to cover his real intentions. Which were what? Training himself to become comfortable with killing people? At one place he says: "You must therefore embrace and familiarise yourself with the concept of killing women, even very attractive women."
Though all normal people see this as plain madness, there are people out there who can take this as an inspiration. Just like his inspiration comes from the Unabombers manifesto which he actually copies word for word as part of his own.
In the manifesto he has a marketing plan which the media unfortunately is carrying out. He describes how to create images for the press that can be used after your "mission" is completed. On July 17th he created a Facebook page to profile himself, with images for the media to use, he created a twitter account with only one quote and he posted his propaganda videos on YouTube. And the media has been using these exact photos to portrait him in the news, showing him in the best possible light.
The gunman was wearing a bullet proof west and made no resistance to the arrest. That was part of his plan all along as he wanted to get caught so he could better get his message across: "Alternatively they will use censorship to silence the story to death as is the common weapon of choice in France. A countermeasure would be for the resistance fighter to actually survive the operation and attest to his political agenda. That his objective was in fact part of a larger, long term strategy to cause ideological damage to the EUSSR/USASSR multiculturalist regime as part of a 100 year plan to completely seize power through military means and replace the system." That is why many Norwegians are asking for a closed trial, so that he does not get the chance to use the trial as a tool to spread his ideology.
So what do you think? Should we stick to our princips with freedom of speech with out limitations? Or should we draw the line somewhere? What do you think? Publish or not?
Hjörtur
@hjortur
Publish it, if only because suppressing it will simply invoke the Streisand Effect (i.e. attempts to suppress it will just generate more interest in its contents). I guess I'm not sure what the negative consequences would be versus not. Is someone more likely to become like him/copy him because the manifesto is out there? I would say probably not. Reading it will not change peoples' nature. It might give them inspiration, but we have to safeguard against this kind of monster whether we publish the manifesto or not; the threat is still out there.
Posted by: Tom Harper | July 24, 2011 at 04:06 PM
Publish it, so that the ideas it expresses will be debated. Opposition to multiculturalism is simply bigotry by another name, and it has widespread and passionate supporters in every conservative organization, because bigotry is basic to conservatism itself. The only reason this isn't generally known is that liberals abhor being contentious and they therefore prefer not to have to debate such matters; ergo, the opposition to publishing this mass-murderer's explanation of his action. Far better to publish it and to distribute any proceeds therefrom to the victims and to the causes that the mass-murderer is trying to defeat.
Posted by: cettel | July 25, 2011 at 12:41 PM
The reason there should be a public debate about his work is that the vast public loathes what he did, and that therefore the revealing to the public of his conservative rationale for it will be the revealing to the public of the dangerousness of those conservative views.
The only reason why conservatism is as popular as it is is that liberals are squeamish about discussing it in direct terms, like parents are squeamish about curse words in front of children. This reluctance by liberals is essential to the growth of conservatism, and it should end.
Posted by: cettel | July 25, 2011 at 12:49 PM
its not clear he wanted to get caught. in fact his manifesto uses the word martyrdom frequently, implying that he was ready to die and planned as such. after the attacks he expressed surprise that police hadnt apprehended him sooner than the 60-90 minutes he had, and i think by then he felt like he had completed his mission, and so didnt put up resistence to the police. if he had had shorter time to kill, then i think he would have put up resistence to police, hence the wearing of body armour etc.. and then he would probably have died.
Posted by: perto | July 26, 2011 at 10:27 PM
The biggest fear, of course, is that publishing will influence minds. Why not defuse that influence by inserting side-by-side commentary that shows why the arguments he makes in this manifesto are wrong?
Posted by: Sterling | July 27, 2011 at 03:20 PM
The book explains how Europeans are going to lose their continent and culture to Islam. It's not hate, it's fact.
Posted by: Mohammed | August 01, 2011 at 02:06 AM
He has been successful in his plan from the start. He even admits that now he will use the system to finish his plan right down to how he is going to use his lawyer. He was correct in many of his plan and I do think he is intelligent but I do not agree with his use of violence. I must sadly admit I am looking forward to see if he gets to work the system and finish his plan. He has been right in how the media would handle him, right in how they would use his pictures, and right how millions have read his work now. The best way to stop his plan is to not allow public viewing of his trial. However that is a double edge sword by stepping on free speech. His marketing plan is working.
Posted by: Jack | August 11, 2011 at 06:52 PM