Rundle: the ideology of attack. A prism will split a single beam of light into a full colour field. No surprise then that the Right’s reaction to Anders Breivik’s act of terror/assassination should undergo such a process, for Breivik’s act is such a crystal, though a dark one to be sure. His act was completely transparent and self-knowing; he understood the magnitude of what he was doing, and the reaction it would provoke. The only honest analysis is that it ranks as one of the more clear-eyed political atrocities of recent times. Thus it is inevitable that attempts to find another way of explaining it will end up scattered across the spectrum.

Following the initial erroneous attribution to Islamist extremists, the Right hastily cobbled together the argument that Breivik was mad — by which they meant so isolatedly psychotic that no motive or meaning could be attributed to them. The most distilled version of this was Melanie Phillips (now blogging privately, after having to leave The Spectator following repeated inaccurate reporting):

“The man is either in the grip of a psychosis or he is a psychopath — in other words, a grossly abnormal personality incapable of human feelings of empathy (my money is on the latter). What he himself says about his own opinions or state of mind therefore does not bear examination. Yet throughout the west, apparently intelligent people have been not only ascribing to him rational thought processes but have been poring over his own words to extract clues about what made him do this. Repeat after me very slowly: Breivik did not murder dozens of teenagers because he was ideologically opposed to cultural Marxism; he mowed them down because he was grossly mentally abnormal …”

This is obviously false. Breivik clearly wasn’t psychotic — his shared the same picture of external reality with us; now giant lizards, no TV talking to him, etc. Nor was he a psychopath; being devoid of empathy is not a sufficient condition of itself for psychopathy. He committed the act precisely because he knew how abhorrent it was. Phillips is guilty of obvious flagrant hypocrisy here — substitute “Mohammed Atta” for Anders Breivik, and one doubts that Phillips would agree.

Most importantly, Melanie doesn’t even agree with herself. For here is the first para of her post:

“I have been reading too many weaselly equivocations about this, along the lines of ‘Yes, it was indeed a most terrible atrocity and one’s heart bleeds for those poor victims; but Norway’s politics towards Israel do stink/Norway’s Labour Party stinks/Quisling’s country, say no more/the Islamisation of Europe stinks/it was only a matter of time before someone was provoked by the railroading of public opinion into doing something like this’.

“No, no, no! Any variety of such ‘yes-buttery’ inescapably makes some kind of excuse for the atrocity, however dressed up it may be in suitably pious expressions of horror …”

The point is obvious. Had Breivik been psychotic he would have made connections that no-one else was making — ie: that the date of the meeting was the anniversary of the Battle of Gvlkk, minus the number 7, which meant etc, etc. Instead Breivik gave a series of explanations which everyone could follow and understand — ie: an explanation for a rational course of action — to such a degree that Melanie finds herself surrounded with people half-agreeing with his motives if not his methods.

By mid-week it was obvious to some that this line of argument was simply wrong, and also self-defeating in its depoliticisation of violent action. This provoked one of the most extraordinary arguments of all (save for Mervyn Bendle’s amazing Norway-truther argument in Quadrant), from Daniel Pipes in National Review. Pipes begins with the usual equivocations — “this is a gruesome freakish exceptional act, it may never happen again” — which ignores a long history of right-wing terror. But then he acknowledges the plain and obvious truth:

“And yet, this exception does tell conservatives that we have to be aware of a danger we had not thought of before. We may oppose socialists, but not vilify them.

“Given how meticulously Behring Breivik planned not just his bombing attack and gun rampage but also his posting of a manifesto and a video, and given his plans to turn his trial into political theater, his terrorism appears ultimately intended primarily to bring attention to his political views.”

Hallelujah, one thinks. Some common-sense acknowledgement of the political nature of Breivik’s act. But then it gets really weird. The true victims of Breivik’s attacks are … the conservative “counterjihad” and its supporters like Daniel Pipes. Breivik’s manifesto states that his act will increase pressure on right-wing parties and unmask the illusion of democracy (another clear example of rationality — since it was used as ajustification for left-wing terror in the ’70s), and that his primary aim was therefore to damage such conservatism.

That is artful, but it also obscures the fact that Breivik saw himself as on the same side of such conservatives, simply doing what they would not. Who do we have to rely on for this? Well let’s ask Daniel Pipes. As he himself notes, in a 2007 piece:

“[Europe’s] future is likely to consist of either Islamization or protracted civil conflict. I sketched the possibility of ‘indigenous Europeans — who do still constitute 95 percent of the continent’s population — waking up one day and asserting themselves. ‘Basta!’ they will say, and reclaim their historic order. This is not so remote; a chafing among Europeans, less among elites than the masses, loudly protests changes already underway.”

So one side of conservatism sees Breivik as mad, and the others see him as sane but doing them damage. Sounds like these guys need to get their stories straight. Or try a new angle and reflect on the event honestly, and their contribution to it. — Guy Rundle

Abbott’s hands on the PM cookie jar. Yes, it’s come to this. Julia Gillard’s popularity is now at such a low level that even Sesame Street favourite, the humble Cookie Monster, is out polling her. As today’s Rockhampton Bulletin reports …

Murdoch now an advertising meme. The News of the World phone hacking scandal is proving damaging for Rupert Murdoch in many ways. Now the left-leaning The Nation, America’s oldest weekly magazine, is trolling him, as this house ad shows:

Front page of the day. The UK’s The Sun produced a wonderfully tabloid front page today:

NY Times journo who lost his legs in Afghanistan

“Joao Silva lost his legs and suffered grave internal injuries when a land mine exploded beneath him in Afghanistan. And now, only nine months later, he’s back.” — New York Times

Former NotW staff offered jobs in Siberia, Finland

“Former staff at the News of the World are understood to be underwhelmed by efforts by News International to find them work after they were handed a list of potential jobs which included posts in Siberia, Russia and Dubai.” — The Guardian

Forbes family’s big deal causes big trouble

“Like many publishers, Forbes Media has struggled during the financial crisis. But according to nonpublic documents made available to Fortune, the company has been under more financial strain than previously believed.” — CNN

Austar chief John Porter confident of Foxtel deal

“The head of Austar United Communications said today he was still confident the pay-TV company would be bought by Foxtel despite the competition regulator’s misgivings.” — The Australian

Newsonomics is a survival manual for journos

“Publishers send us a lot of books to review, and we wish we could get to them all more quickly. It took us 18 months to finally read Ken Doctor’s Newsonomics, but we’re glad we did. Doctor’s perspectives on the future of news are as fresh today as they were in early 2010. We were surprised and encouraged by his optimism.” — Newspaper Death Watch

NYC libraries allow kids to ‘read down’ their fines

“In New York City, any library patron with $15 or more in fines can’t check out books. To ease this restriction, the New York Public Library and the Queens Public Library will allow 143,000 blocked kids a chance to “read down” their fines this summer.” — GalleyCat