I feel a strange and profound admiration for Anders Behring Breivik. His actions speak louder than any words. Does he not appear to be a conscious and passionate patriot, not only for Norway, but for Europe? White Europe, consider your son.
There was a day when such men were called knights. National heroes. They drove the Muslims and their infernal religion out of Europe. Because of men like Vlad Ţepeş (Dracula), Europe remained Christian, and white.
Is that day no longer? Is it perished forever? Is there no resistance, in the name of God, or any other name, to the satanic course of Islam?
An unidentified photo grab from a video of Anders B. Breivik.
Perhaps he considers himself a true patriot of his country.
He stood, dramatically, when none else would stand.
Despite the weirdness or peculiarities of his personal life and history, there is no need to get lost in such ambiguities and psychological reveries. His act stands for itself, in the midst of any complexity. Anders Behring Breivik attacked the cause of the problem as he saw it. He sees the white, Christian world submitting to Islam, through the manipulative cowardice of white leaders. The problem is not Islam, but the traitorous leaders of his country. While he was at it, he attacked an anti-Israel summer camp which trained young Norwegians to hate Jews, or, the nation of Israel. The Prime Minister of Norway was there to encourage the same. So was Breivik cowardly? How about simply “unwise.” Breivik said, “necessary.”
Breivik’s “Manifesto” will no doubt become a best seller, of sorts.
Today I listen to Avi Lipkin speak about Breivik, and much more, at Charlie Meadows’ OPCAC (Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee). Lipkin, an evangelical sort of Jew from New York (living in Israel) publicly condemned what Breivik did. “Killing is wrong,” he said. I was completely disappointed in that statement. That’s like saying war is wrong. It is true that murder and war involved two different Hebrew words. The word translated “kill” in the King James commandment (Ex. 20: 13) is רצה (ra-tsach’, which we understand as murder; where as in war the word for kill is מות (muwth). Breivik considers himself in a war–against Islam, obviously, and viscerally. But, that enemy’s immediate ally, the cause of the threat–is not Islam, but the traitors of his own country, his own race, his own religion, as it were.
Not that we necessarily have a choice, as individuals, as to how we go about making war against our national, cultural, or religious enemies, but, surely Breivik’s view itself is natural, normal, even noble. His action may be considered tragic, but his message is triumphant. The price he will pay, according to liberal Norwegian law, appears minimal. But let the liberals suffer the consequences of their own policies.
Most of us only talk about what needs to be done. Most of us are absolutely powerless to do anything. Tyranny, through Islam, advances every day. In America, our Delinquent-in-Chief is determined to make America a third world Communist country and a Muslim haven. “Fundamental transformation,” he calls it. None of us take any effective action. We waste our time and energy through the ego highway called “politics.” It is better than war, of course. Unless politics fails. Then it is too late, and war happens anyway. Why not war to save the country before war to start over? What is the difference? War to save the country is shorter, surer, and less costly in every way.
Geir Lippestad, Breivik’s defense attorney, is notably insecure about the case. The “insanity” plea is completely uncertain. Lippestad cannot describe Breivik. He is different, he is unlike anyone else. “He has a view on reality which is very, very difficult to understand.” Here is the Guardian’s video clip of an interview with Lippestad. Here is a more extensive YouTube clip of the same interview. I would say, Of course Breivik’s ‘insanity’ is difficult to understand. He isn’t insane.
Lipkin, the Jewish speaker I heard today, said that Breivik simply had no outlet, no freedom of speech. America is the only western country in which you can condemn someone else’s religion and not be put in jail. Lipkin felt that Breivik was completely frustrated with a “socialist government.”
Finally, I would say it is critically important not to compare Breivik with Timothy McVeigh, who acted in conspiracy with demonstrated Muslim connections. Breivik and McVeigh both attacked government buildings, but for entirely different reasons. The U.S. government completely covered-up the Murrah Bombing of 1995. Probably, the Norwegian government will cover up things as well, for different reasons.
What is clear is that Breivik had a vision about what was happening in the world, to Europe, and to his own country. It was a horrible truth, and one which he took action against.
Again, he blamed his own government leaders, not Muslims. He considered his own government traitorous.
Perhaps Anders Behring Breivik simply erred in acting alone. Perhaps he saw no other way to take action, to communicate the message all white, Christian people really feel. Islam is a horrible, iron cowl of tyranny and violence, which inflames testosterone and infamy against women and children. Blood and death is the image Islamic leaders have created, and no Muslims in the world have effectively protested. That’s where we stand.
Breivik said that sixty years from now, everyone will know why he did what he did. He took no joy in the act. It was “regrettable,” he said. Of course, sixty years from now, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Lipkin said the Middle East is depopulating, and millions of Muslims will be coming to the United States, as well as to Europe and Latin America. Their countries are plagued with famine and poverty, and their arrogant leaders want nothing more than to get rid of their populations. This is the Arabs. This is the Africans. This is what is coming our way, even as we speak.
I feel a strange and profound admiration for Anders Behring Breivik. I’m not sure what that means, or what course of action it suggests. I just know that something seems terribly right about what he did. I know it screams out as an unspeakable wrong, but, he didn’t attack Muslims. He attacked the traitors of his own country. He was trying to call attention to the problem. He focused on the cause, not the symptom. Dare we do the same?