Banality of Evil. It ‘s very likely that the thirty-Anders Behring Breivik, author of the terrible massacre of Oslo, is really just a little insecure compulsive liar suffering from what psychoanalysts call “the Herostratus” complex: from quell’Erostrato that in 356 BC, burned it fire to the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, in order to be remembered forever for someone who had done “something big”, and which became the ” hero ‘of the Enlightenment novel Alessandro Verri (who would later convert to Catholicism traditionalist ).
Want to be remembered for something, anything: even for something negative, especially as today, in the society of the spectacle and consumption – reminds him why well Umberto Eco – with time one became famous forgets, but fame It may however remain. It is digging into the past of Breivik. Apparently, according to some of his acquaintances, it is a former teenager introverted and perhaps suffering from various complexes, which in 19 years after a US travelers would undergo a facial plastic surgery to buy “connotations more manly” and he would begin to boast of success, wealth, female conquests and so on. There is talk of a big memorial that he would put on-line in English, an “European Declaration of Independence” in which he railed against Muslim immigrants, multicultualisti and Marxists, supporting the need to assimilate or expel the early 2020 and to persecute and physically hitting the second and third. This is discussed heavily by Richard Marx and his partner, which can be read on their website.The memorial fregerebbe of symbols defined as neo-Nazi and would contain references to the Templars and the Grail, according to a parapolitica mythology that – with many variables – is quite widespread among groups and factions of the extreme right now for about a half a century.
Breivik, who seems to have largely inspired by the American Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, expresses a common opinion within the extremist formations of the right, that we should oppose that the “culture of performance” is an expression that includes this avoiding critical joints, any attitude of understanding, respect and goodwill towards immigrants who are coming to our continent; and emigration sees the main cause of its crisis and its prospects of decay, without even prove to set a more serious and complex analysis of the globalization process of which migrations are part: and no doubt more effect than cause.
A common and constant feature of this paraideologia is that it appears the development of that expressed by groups that a few decades ago were mostly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian: but now seem to have been recycled – no doubt to ride the success of theses that, especially in the eight years of ‘era of George W. Bush jr., appeared “winning” – in a strongly pro Zionist and Christian direction wire. A sudden metamorphosis, nonchalant, which is not subject to fatigue of any self-analysis and justification car: all at once, both the “Christian civilization” (but in Protestant countries is avoided to explain the role, within it, of Catholicism) and Israel appear become the safe bastions in the struggle against Muslim wave that threatens to engulf the world.
Thesis of the genre have established many years, even by us: and have been taken up, so sometimes seemingly even less coarse, groups close to the neoconservatives thesis and teoconservatives who call themselves “christianists”, have magazines and online sites and they champion a strict Catholicism words in terms of respect for tradition, and dogmatic orthodoxy of the liturgical correctness (with symptomatic insistence on critical than that which they call “relativism” and a tendency to condemn the prospects of Vatican II), from which it appears absent any solidarity and social tension. From this “Catholicism” is also considered missing any critical developments “turbo-capitalist” of finance and economics, in a direction that appears largely inspired by the American libertarianism and that looks very strong positive recall, of Calvinist origin, profit and enrichment indiscriminately as positive values. In other words, these “christianists” – not unlike their friends and associates, the “devout atheists” – tend to remove any criticism of the “secularization of society”, that the individualist revolution from which, between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, gave rise to the modern Western civilization, the one that claimed to be able to live etsi Deus non daretur.
The current “fundamentalism christianist” claims to delete the tear and the West to recognize the current continuation without interruption of the societas Christiana previous great revolutions seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the development of international capitalism; It claims to reduce the problems of today’s world with the sole opposition to a supposed problem “of Islam spread”, postulated in the light of both a simplistic statistical projection of population growth rate of the Muslim world today, without any serious evaluation is internal differences to Islam (which it does not have a single driving force, nor an intimate socio-political coherence) and the dogma of the inevitability of a “clash of civilizations”, password ideological order disguised as a sociological prediction and spread by pamphlets (anything but a scientific paper, as presented as such) published in 1996 by Samuel P. Huntington. It claims to fight against “relativism”, but confusing “ethical” relativism, which coincides with the abandonment and betrayal of Christian ethics in the society of believers, with the “anthropological relativism” which is nothing if no recognition of the fact that no objective hierarchy can be sustained in the confrontation between cultures and that each of them must be judged from within itself and its principles (and then obviously there, the light of faith, a truth absolute: which is precisely the category of their own faith and inherent in theology, but not about history but in the light of the mystery of Novissima, not likely to be translated into terms of historical immanentisticamente much less political and sociological).
Breivik appears part, m albeit marginal and zany, this galaxy of pseudo political and religious thought. Now, it certainly does not mean that all “fundamentalism christianist” is likely to become a terrorist danger. It is understood, however wary anyone from proposing superficial and reductive analysis of events such as the slaughter of Oslo. It ‘obvious that it is a result of the will of a madman: Breivik and, unlike “his hero” Parsifal, an “impure crowds”. But nothing proves that he acted alone, nor is it a block. Perhaps he had accomplices, perhaps his “isolated” gesture is part of a larger plan, which maybe will vanish without a trace, but you can not underestimate prejudicially. There is method in this madness.