In fall 2009 Behring Breivik says that he has been working on a book titled 2083 for three years. It already runs into 1400 pages! He offers to send it to the blogger Fjordman.Be that as it may, the damage this 'special case' has done, and is still doing, is potentially more far-reaching then is (barely) understood at this time.
Behring Breivik seems like a very special case.
Ninety-two lives have been cut short on the decision of an individual that had no right to make that decision in the first place. Nine-two families have been thrown into grief and bereavement, as they must come to terms with the loss of a loved one. The descriptions of what happened on the Utøya island sketch out a mass-murder of a supremely sadistic nature. An act that is in shattering dissonance with the shooters professed Christianity (if that is actually what he is. There are clues his Facebook page, where the claim to Christianity is made, was tampered with). Neither the Ten Commandments, not the Mount Olive sermon can be believably twisted into something that mandates, or even just excuses, what happened on that tragic island. That is not 'resistance', it is murder, cold-blooded, calculated, bereft of love, compassion or mercy. It is evil.
That is not to say the views (much unlike the actions) of Breivik are equally abhorrent or evil. In the manifesto there is a lot to agree with, if you are willing to put down the multi-cultural blinkers. Many quarters in many cities around Europe are much worse now then they were 30-40 years ago, ravaged by the effects on uncontrolled immigration. Progressive taxation and the welfare state have produced a society where an ever increasing number of unproductive people live off the ever increasing taxes levied on ever diminishing numbers of productive members of society. At the same time we have a governing elite, that is insulating itself more and more from public accountability, while increasing the control and oppression of average citizens.
If you study the situation for even just a little while, you'll know that the way things are right now, is just not sustainable. For those that want to see, it is as clear as the light of day changes must be made, but that the changes that *are* made are to the detriment of the very people in whose names these changes are effected. Fjordman notices this and writes extensively about it. I agree with much of what he writes. So does Breivik. Which means that I (up to a point) agree with Breiviks views, for they are mine. But the atmosphere in the West is of such suffocating political correctness, that you cannot, in civil society, discuss the negative aspects of immigration, islam or the EUnion, unless you relish being ostracised at work or in the neighbourhood (been there, done that, is the expression).
That is even more true if you have the audacity to proclaim the virtues of conservatism or Christianity in this day and age. I remember two instances at work when the topic of Christianity came up. The first time I was treated to a diatribe on how Christianity was responsible for all the wars and genocides in history. The second time, my faith was arrogantly dismissed as a falsehood by pointing to the writings of Dan Brown (for f.cks sake!). There is really no defence against such stupidity. So, when the topic surfaces again, I hold my thoughts to myself.
But that is the point, isn't it? The mood in the Netherlands and in Europe is so overwhelmingly anti-Christian and anti-conservatism, that any apologia of either is anathema. Christians and conservatives cannot express their views openly. Not unless it is couched in the soothing, relativistic poli-cor terms of this post-modern age, that leaves any deviation from the party line meaningless and irrelevant. The current political-sociological discourse just does not tolerate dissension.
Which leads me to a question: Is this atrocity not a product of the West itself? Every single act of muslim terrorism in or directed against the West has been, not with retribution, but with accommodation. The tangible results of 9/11 have been an Islam inspired crescent shaped park and the Ground Zero mosque. The major terrorism acts in Europe (Madrid, London, the van Gogh murder in Holland) were immediately followed by calls to combat 'islamophobia'. Over the last two decades, the West have collectively and consistently signalled the willingness to give greater allowance to ideologies that use violence to intimidate. That being the case, is it not conceivable that somebody, somewhere draws the conclusion that he should use the same strategies and tactics to attain some room, some respect for his convictions? Did Breivik come to the conclusion he would also have to deploy jihadi-style tactics to cow the political classes? Could the Norway shooting have been a self-inflicted wound?
In the mean time, the Left and the MSM are running with the “right-wing Christian Fundamentalist” narrative with almost unseemly enthusiasm. That the first claims of responsibility for this atrocity came from islamic jihadi groups has been all but forgotten. Progressives around the blogosphere are singling out Christians and Conservatives for responsibility. It is in glaring contradiction to the way these same progressives call for a greater understanding of 'muslim pain' that is supposedly expressed in the acts of murderous madmen of the islamic faith. Contrary to that lofty call consistently labelling any such views 'hateful' and 'extreme right-wing'.
In the UK it is already under way. The Last Ditch:
It's Christmas for the left-liberal consensus. They are still in their glee from the undoubted success of their suspiciously Campbell-esque campaign against News International. They are still earnestly blabbering over state-dominated airwaves, without a hint of irony, about the supposed 'dominance' of a private company struggling to compete with the funded-by-force BBC. A Norwegian nutjob has now made them an even greater gift. Watching the Andrew Marr and Murnaghan shows this morning (and wondering as usual why the Conservatives are as little in evidence as they were in opposition) their delight was manifest.Biased BBC noticed the same tendency:
Within hours of the breaking news the BBC was very quick to repeat comment that the culprit was a "tall blonde man" perspective, followed this morning by "fundamental Christian" and "far-right." The words "Timothy McVeigh" also have been repeated on every news loop. Now, I don't think there is anything WRONG per se with providing us with this information so promptly but I contrast this with those OTHER acts of terrorism where the culprits were Islamists and the BBC were extremely reluctant to provide us with similar backgrounds preferring to use euphemisms.And it will get worse. According to his lawyer, Breivik is completely aware of the evil he perpetrated, describing it as horrific, but necessary. Tomorrow Breivik will appear before a judge. He has already signalled he will explain himself and his murders then.
This is what I fear: He will be led into the court and he will start to speak. Calmly and (relatively) intelligently he will explain why multi-culturism is slowly destroying the West. How the progressive movement in Europe is actively out to take away our freedom, our tradition and our history. And what he'll say will sound to many as common sense. Until the part where he comes to justify the unjustifiable, the random killing. And from that point on, common sense will be forever linked to the actions of this piece of scum. Progressives will have the perfect excuse to shut up and shut down anyone that does not agree, looks upon issues differently then is prescribed by the progressive articles of faith.
And thus, Breivik will find that whatever he intended, he has scored a major victory for his opponents. An agent provocateur seeking to discredit the right-wing conservative sliver of the European political spectrum would have a hard time doing a better job. It is the perfect excuse to persecute and silence opposing voices… We’re heading for dark days.
[UPDATE001] Also read Autonomous Mind:
Where security experts are stating this week that there is a rise of the ‘far right’ in Europe, perhaps they do not realise we might be looking at nothing more than the an increasingly extreme form of rejection of socialist political control and the creeping internationalism that sees the political class seeking to transform European nations while doing everything possible to avoid asking the electorates for their permission to do so.Exactly!
The antidote to political violence in Europe is simple… the restoration of genuine democracy where the people, not the political class, have the power.
[UPDATE002] Original post edited. I deleted the last couple of lines. Having regained my sense of perspective a little, they read to me too nauseatingly maudlin to let them stand. The post is a bit of a work in progress to begin with. There are a lot of angles and issues to this enormous event to get your head around.
[UPDATE003] With regard to Breiviks supposed 'Christian fundamentalism' His Grace has a few thoughts. But the maximum score for clarity in brevity goes to this tweet by Brian Doerksen:
The fundamental posture of a follower of Christ is to allow oneself to be killed - not to kill others. Christian victory is through the cross.