The British press at work
Anyone who has been reading the British press in recent days can’t help but notice that the American-owned blog Gates of Vienna has been mentioned in several articles about the Scandinavian spree killer, Anders Breivik. In the absence of any causal link between the two, some journalists have resorted to guilt by insinuation. Their readers are given one or two decontextualised facts about the events of 1683. They are then invited to draw certain conclusions about the blog. What most people don’t know (after all, they have no reason to know) is that Vienna in 1683 was a defensive conflict, one of the few times when Ottoman aggrandizement in Europe, and throughout the Mediterranean, was successfully checked. The siege of Malta in 1565 was another. On that occasion one of the largest armed fleets ever assembled descended upon Malta and laid siege to the island. The forces of Suleyman the Magnificent ended up being fought to a stalemate by the Knights of St. John, who were based on Malta, together with a handful of fighting men and of course, the Maltese islanders themselves. If Suleyman’s forces had prevailed, they would have attempted to do what the Allies did in WWII and from the island of Malta, invaded Sicily. From Sicily, Italy. From there, onwards and up into the “soft underbelly” of Europe. Anyone wishing to understand the significance of someone naming their blog Gates of Vienna must therefore ask themselves: Why Vienna? What was the Ottoman army doing laying siege to Vienna in the first place? What would have happened if they had not been repelled? And just as important: Why would it have happened? The historian Niall Ferguson recently made a TV series about, among other things, the Gates of Vienna. (See link.) Anyone wanting to know more than the bare details provided in the British press recently could do worse than watch Ferguson’s series. (It’s available here.)
Like many people throughout the West, I knew practically nothing about either the teachings or history of Islam prior to 9/11. And for a long time afterwards, I remained ignorant. However, as the list of terrorist attacks grew longer, and it became clear that Muslims were carrying out those terrorist attacks, the question inevitably arose: Maybe not all Muslims are terrorists, but why on earth are all these terrorists that we’re seeing Muslims? I decided to investigate.
It seemed to me that it would be best to avoid any new, post-9/11 authors. So I started reading books on Islam by writers such as William Montgomery Watt and Hugh Kennedy. I also started to read some history books by writers like Ernle Bradford and Roger Crowley. I discovered that although the Islamic prophet began his career in prophecy as a moderate, as one might say nowadays, he went on to become a far more bellicose character. Unfortunately the Islamic principle of abrogation insists that the verses in the Koran from his later years take precedence over earlier, more moderate, verses. Given the Islamic view of the Koran, this is problematic. I also discovered that as a matter of doctrine, Islam denies that Jesus was the Son of God, and it denies the crucifixion. So the teachings of Islam can never be reconciled with Christianity. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
There is, of course, no problem in studying religion or history. Nor is there any difficulty with discussing immigration. Former British PM Gordon Brown said in November 2009, “Immigration is not an issue for fringe parties, nor a taboo subject. It is a question to be dealt with at the heart of our politics; a question about what it means to be British.” David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, former Australian PM John Howard and former Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar have all said that multiculturalism has failed. Gordon Brown has also said that he does not agree with the “lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist”. Quite so.
All those different politicians have reached the conclusion that multiculturalism is a failed policy. The question is: What information did they have access to that led them to that conclusion? If there is information available that will lead educated, rational, reasonable people to believe that multiculturalism is a failed policy – to put it another way, if it is possible to research the issue properly and reach that conclusion – then there’s no problem with the owners of a website doing the necessary research, and reaching that same conclusion.
And if there is no problem with someone discussing immigration, or religion, or history, then it’s difficult to see how journalists can justify smearing a blog by associating it with the Scandinavian spree killer Anders Breivik, without providing any evidence of a causal link between the two. Apparently Breivik also watched Top Gear. Is Jeremy Clarkson, who has made many outrageous, politically incorrect statements over the years, responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik? No? Then neither is some American-owned blog on the internet.
In the final analysis, there are plenty people who have appeared in the writing or in the internet life of Anders Breivik, but who are clearly not responsible for his actions: The makers of Dexter, John Stuart Mill, Niccolo Machiavelli, George Orwell, Homer, the owners of Gates of Vienna, the makers of the movie 300, the makers of The Shield, and of course, Mr. Clarkson from the BBC’s Top Gear.
Only one person is responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik, and that is the man himself.
