In the same period, republicans and supporters of the king experienced a huge division in France. Some made a connection between the Riviere case and the trial of Giuseppe Marco Fieschi, who made an assassination attempt against King Louis Philippe. There were people who held the view that the assassination attempt by a subject against the king, their father, could be seen as an uprising to save the people, and therefore, Riviere’s murder might not be seen as horrible since it was an attempt to save his father from the brutality of his mother. Famous French philosopher Michel Foucault and his friends, who redrew attention to the memoirs that Riviere had published, authored a volume based on the docket files, the official documents and forensic reports. Their goal was to determine impartially as to whether Riviere was a monster or a lunatic.
Foucault was an unusual thinker with a radical perspective. His goal was more than exonerating Riviere; his main goal was to identify the archeology of the social structure. I have a reason to bring this matter to mind. A surprising discussion started after the endorsement of the court verdict on the trial of Anders Behring Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway. A report published in the Turkish media shows that this murderer has intellectual support. Richard Millet, who wrote a column on Breivik, said Norway deserved what happened because it allowed multiculturalism and the migration of other people. In his column, Millet said: “The multiculturalism that was imported from the US is the worst thing that has ever happened to Europe. It creates ghetto mosaics where the hosting nation is not existent. I believe that Breivik saw this and gave a monstrous response to this question.” (Aug. 30, 2012, Milliyet daily).
The French writer, who views the disappearance of national identity, the Islamization of Europe and the decline of Christian values and roots as a great danger and threat, argues, ”Undoubtedly, the multiculturalist Norway deserved Breivik.” This remark by Millet, who works as an editor and writer at the Gallimard Publishing House, should be viewed as intellectual support for this massacre despite his condemnation of the incident.
A linkage was established between the Riviere murder that took place in the 19th century France and the Breivik massacre, and this is presented as an innocent reflex. Breivik, who identifies himself as member of the European organization of the Knights Templar, committed a horrendous massacre as the executioner of a racist and exclusionary mindset over multiculturalism and democracy. Of course, it is not multiculturalism that has dragged Europe and the US to the brink of collapse and crisis. There are many elements and actors that lead to brutality, dictatorships, injustices, degeneration and cultural alienation. Is there any difference between this intellectual manifesto that sanctifies and absolves Breivik and the articles by Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg in his book “Blood and Honor”?
Does Millet want to make a distinction between the dictators and tyrants of the West and of the East in order to justify the actions of some and demonize those of others?
Did Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin set Europe on fire and kill millions of people because of multiculturalism or Muslims? Are Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, or as an actual example, Bashar al-Assad, people who Muslims are proud of? History has always recorded political and ethnic conflicts. It is not necessary to attribute these dilemmas or conflicts to an external factor or reason. A free Europe, as noted by German President Joachim Gauck, should be able to state that they are not scared of extremists and that they would stand against them. And in fact, they should seek an answer to the question “Does Breivik deserve a democratic and prosperous Europe?” And so should reasonable and conscientious intellectuals as well.
