Anders Behring Breivik sent a desperate message to a desparate world. Despite whatever abnormal mental conditions may be assigned him, he spoke effectively to the world. The liberal world, even the moral world, may choose not to hear, and may rather absorb into psychoanalysis of the man, Breivik; the liberal media will surely divert all attention from his message to his mania, or the mania they ascribe to him. Nevertheless. Breivik’s act expresses a profound social archetype, larger and more urgent than any political exigency he might have attempted to articulate, or than any theoretical mental construct designed to distort or cover up his message, which liberals or even conservatives may lay on him. It’s about survival–of race, nation, language, religion (freedom) and culture–regardless. That speaks, eloquently, to anyone concerned about such survival. (And certainly, Breivik’s act speaks more effectively than any doctrine.)
Anders Behring Breivik: Who or what will claim him?
Let me explain the templet into which I find this Breivik event to fit, and the reason his act is louder than his personal labyrinths of logic.
Years ago, when I played soccer with Neopolitan Italians in New Haven, Connecticut, an incident occurred which perfectly illustrates the phenomenological shape and point I wish to make. There was a big, tall player, named Vinnie (Vincenzo). He was a very mild mannered, soft spoken person. Underneath that, he was violent and deadly. Like most Italians, he was very intelligent and perceptive when it came to human behavior. At one game, he was fouled egregiously. The referee did not call it. Later, he was fouled again, by the same player, in the same way. Again the referee did not call it. Yet a third time, the same player fouled Vinnie. This time, Vinnie immediately ran over to the referee and started beating the daylights out of him. Only Vinnie’s teammates saved the referee from death, (and no doubt Vinnie from life in prison).
Vinnie took up no argument with the opponent, the player who fouled him. Vinnie knew that wasn’t the problem. The problem was the referee. Vinnie blamed the referee.
Now, the same construct occurred in the Breivik affair. Breivik attacked the referee–the government! Breivik attacked those who were entrusted with controlling the game. He attacked those who had power and responsibility–which they were not using. It doesn’t really matter what sort of logic or mania went through the mind of Anders Breivik. It doesn’t matter how he got there. He held those responsible who were responsible–for what he believes is the immediate and endangered future of Norway, Europe, and Western Civilization.
Rush Limbaugh made a few interesting points on the matter. If liberals had any such thing as consistency, they would be deeply concerned over Breiviks disposition, and earnestly enquire, “Why does he hate us? Why did he attack us?” They would follow just the order they took when they responded to the 9-11 terrorists, and all other Muslim mass murderers. “Where can we build you a church,” they would say to Breivik. After all, liberals can’t support enough mosques in America. They especially want one at Ground Zero, all for the dear Muslims, so they won’t hate us.
But, again, my point is simple: Breivik went for the referee, not the opponents. He went for his government, not the Muslims.
The youth camp? The grotesque slaughter of youth–the young men and women of his own nation? What was the point of that? Everyone universally condemns the killing of innocents, especially youth. But, does anyone claim innocence for the Hitler Youth? Does anyone blame the allies for killing women and children of Germany? And we all know how Islam trains youth to kill. Breivik obviously regarded the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian terrorist youth of Norway to be the equivalent of anti-Norway subversives. He didn’t consider them innocent at all. He made a “preëmtive” strike, so to speak. I ask, Would anyone have condemned some German patriot who tried to kill Hitler Youth? No, the circumstances are not perfectly parallel. Germany was already at war. It was too late, then.
Of course, I personally feel terrible for the young people, their families, and friends. Yet, even Glenn Beck has brought up the Hitler Youth reference, (I came to find out before posting this). I think it is a tragic incident, obviously, but, I also don’t want tragedy to blind my judgment of all the elements involved in this story.
And “innocence” isn’t much of a polemic anymore, not when American liberals slaughter some 1,250,000 infants a year (since 2008). (Make that some 14 million a year, world-wide.) Willfull killing of innocents is hardly an impressive protest, coming from liberals.
So, liberals will absorb themselves in public mourning, which is what they do best. They love to glorify victims. They love being victims. This authorizes them to blame anyone for anything they want to. Victimhood is their strongest claim, and gives them a moral advantage in every argument. Professional conservatives, on the other hand, will spend most of their time condemning Breivik, disowning his ideas, and distinguishing themselves from anything that would in any way give liberals opportunity to accuse. Conservatives fear being accused every bit as much as being physically attacked. Conservatives tend to fear liberals, period.
Breivik had no fear, save for the survival of Norway and Western Civilization.
Already, the liberal media is pointing all interest to the innocent youth Breivik killed, and the right-wing mania in his thinking. The liberal media has already used the story in a way that diverts from the stated motive of Breivik–to resist immigration and the destruction of western culture, and instead places emphasis on the imagined immorality of conservative values and their tendency to create “monsters” like Breivik.
I just don’t see it this way. I see it as I saw Vinnie, the Italian soccer player who, when fouled, repeatedly, went for the referee.