Wednesday, April 18, 2012

The Norway Shooter: Behring Breivik

Behring Breivik is the guy in Norway who:
  1. Released a YouTube video (pictures are from ass-hat's video) and a 1500 (!) page PDF manifesto that explained why he was doing what he was about to do
  2. Set off bombs in downtown Oslo and then, while authorities were distracted
  3. Went to an island where kids affiliated with a major political party were summer-camping and murdered a bunch of them
He did this because he believes that this will strike a key blow in his war against the cultural dominance of Islam over the west. He is now on trial and has been evaluated as an extreme narcissist--or maybe crazy--or both. Or whatever (because of Norway's laws there are ramifications to whether he is crazy or not and how long they can hold him--forever if he's crazy. I think 21 years with option to extend if he's not). 

What The Fuck?
There are news sources with deeper analysis than I, an over-seas observer, can possibly provide here--but I want to to talk about this for a minute because there are a few things that you might not know. Let's start with: What Was He Thinking!?

What WAS He Thinking?
Here, from reading part of his manifesto, is what he was thinking: Europe is under attack by Islam. Their plan is to immigrate / infiltrate, breed, and then spread their intolerance and tyranny across the west creating Eurabia--a subjugated land where Europe used to be.
If they take Europe that's like FIVE ARMIES A ROUND--and a ROUTE TO GREENLAND!
Facilitating this, either wittingly or unwittingly, is Political Correctness: Cultural Marxism. It is the belief that all cultures deserve equality regardless of their tenants or behaviors and, just as Marxism tries to enforce economic equality, Cultural Marxism enforces cultural tolerance to the point where western civilization will be destroyed. 

Clearly the use of the same color and a general circle mean they're the same--WAIT, THE STAR-FLEET COMMAND INSIGNIA LOOKS KINDA LIKE THAT!
Cultural Marxism may or may not intend to have the world subjugated under Islam--I did not see a clear link--but it is definitely opening the door for the "Trojan horse."

As such, targets that are directly Islamic is not the primary target. The primary target is the establishment. He writes that students are "considered acceptable indirect targets as for example 95-99% of journalism students will support multiculturalism indirectly / directly." He suggests not attacking royal family abodes.

In addition to being a publicity stunt for his manifesto (he doesn't say this, but c'mon) he wants to spark conditions where he will get to make his case for TV cameras--to recruit for the cause: an order of like-minded terrorists called the 'Justicar Knights.'

It's All Encyclopedia Britannica's Fault
Well, okay--maybe not all. Back in 1878 Britain struck a deal with the Ottomans promising to protect them from Russia in return for Cyprus. Part of the deal was a "wide scale revision" of Encyclopedia Britannica (10th edition and onwards) to shore up the story on Muslims and Islamic behavior which they had called "evil" before. This started the ball rolling.
Encarta is so much better than Britannica ... and FOX NEWS is way better than the BBC
A Perfect Cover Story: World of Warcraft
You should create an alibi that will explain your odd behavior as you become a Templar (a lone-wolf warrior in his model). This should explain isolation and travel. He suggests "tell them that you have started to play World of Warcraft ... and that you wish to focus on this for the next months/year ... Tell them that you are completely hooked on the game ... Emphasize to them that this is a dream you have had since you were a kid. ... Ask them to respect your decision."

He then suggests that if you need to explain travel, you, you go completely into fantasy: "say you are visiting one of your Wow friends, or better yet, a girl from your "guild" who lives in another country."

As a back up: "Say that you are gay and are in the process of discovering your new self and that you don't want to talk any more about the issue."

Forecast calls for shitty graphics Breivik made himself
Music To Kill By
In order to keep your spirits up, you will need mental discipline and music. He recommends the band Saga and provides a play list of the best stuff. The band is not amused:
It has come to my attention that my music has been cited, along with a number of other people and groups, as going some way to inspiring one of the most vile and criminal acts in recent history.

I cannot begin to describe how saddened I am to hear that and wanted to inform you all of my shock and utter horror at such an atrocity.
On Killing Women
He's not happy about it--but hey?
It is essential to know that approximately 60-70% of all cultural Marxists or suicidal humanist are female and up to 20% of police officers and military personnel (system protectors).
Maybe he's just concerned with killing some women ...
Why Didn't He Mention Alanis?
I suspect Alanis Morisette would find this ironic:
Annual political party meeting Barbeque
An efficient plan will involve a flame thrower/assault rifle assault strategy
The Future of Sex
He spends a lot of time talking about his ideal future state. Marriage will be a 20 year + commitment, abortion will be illegal. Women will be strongly discouraged from education above a Bachelors degree (but not prevented from higher). There will be "Las Vegas" zones where sex is freely available, contraception is available, and sex education above Europe in the 50's and 60's is available. These sex-zones will be quarantined from the rest of society so that people can go and frolic and not ruin it for the rest of us. All schools  will be gender segregated.
Those weren't the Trojans I was talking about

Here is his video
The embedding didn't work--but you can view it here.

Get them young, aim for the women ... WAIT, WHICH OF THOSE GIRLS IS PLAYING BASEBALL!?!
What Do I Think?
It is clear to me from reading Breivik's manifesto that he is not insane. His mind is in perfect working order. While I can't speak to his list (his giant list) of facts ('facts') I can suppose they are all more or less true. Even the one about Encyclopedia Britannica--why not? The problem is not his facts--he gets the trends right. He zeroes in on specific ugliness of some of the Islamic integration in Europe. He's troubled about the below-replacement white European birthrate. He's not the only only one.

What's different is his solution: to inspire a movement by specific use of an atrocity to amplify his message. Let's face it: a body of work with the page count of the Twilight novels is not going to be widely read without a body count.

Is he a narcissist? Almost certainly as I understand the diagnosis. His manifesto has pages on ribbons and medals awarded to his orders of 'Justicar Templars.' He fills pages with operational planning and strategy guides--he lists personal combat equipment, by body-part, with notes as to weight (You can tell he spent a lot of time playing World of Warcraft, yeah?). He certainly sees himself as creating a movement that will re-shape the world. He's lined up everything to ignite the spark. His plans are complex, strategically questionable, and grand-ideal type stuff ...

But none of this is crazy.

What it is, is evil. If there's anything he is right about it's that we, in our enlightened age, have gotten away from calling things evil. We want to say he's crazy 'cause how could a sane person do those things? We limit "evil" to the Nazis and the ring-fence them with the Godwin rule. In Norway there is no capital punishment--so they can't execute him.

I am not really an advocate of capital punishment, per se. We are human--we get things wrong. We make mistakes both in procedure (the judiciary) and process (bungled executions are a stain). And yet, sometimes this robs us of the most legitimate response: he ought to be executed.

Not for vengeance--that's a low-road reason. Not for deterrent: if he did get advocates they would certainly be willing to die for the cause (It's right there in the manifesto!). He should be executed for justice--because that's the strongest legitimate response to evil--which is what this is.

Now it might make him a martyr. There might be good pragmatic reasons for not killing him. Leaving him in jail might "actually be worse." This is all possibly true and these are all good points. But what do I think?

I think they ought to try him and execute him.


  1. Argh... not to defend this guy or threadjack (but I will anyway)...

    He should be executed for justice--because that's the strongest legitimate response to evil

    That's begging the question, and a personal value judgement on the definition of "justice" and the legitimacy of capital punishment.

    It's not the strongest possible response to evil. For example, instead of just killing him, we could rape him, torture him, make hum suffer, prolong his agony, murder his family and friends in front of him, *then* kill him, and defile his body.

    All of that has been seen as "legitimate" in various times and cultures, though here and now we tend to disagree.

    So, what's the criteria for legitimacy?

    I certainly don't have one; as best as I can tell legitimacy is most often a cover story for vengeance. Instead, I think we should focus on practicality.

    1. I think we should focus on practicality

      Well, of course you think that: you're a Canadian-Indoctrinated Cultural Marxist.


      Look: if you are willing to call his act evil--and are willing to extend that description to him--then the question becomes "What is to be done with evil?" It seems to me that while we may not have a bright-line demarcation point for evil vs. just plain bad, we don't always have to.

      I am comfortable calling the Nazis evil.

      I am comfortable calling Breivik evil.

      I believe that the rational and moral response to evil is eradicating it. If you are willing to lock him up and throw away the key? Well, I think it's selling out a little--but I'm not going to throw a fit about that either.

      The reason my take stops short of being a policy statement is because I'm fully aware that different people will have different thresholds for 'evil' and the moral calculus of trying to objectively prove my position may not be possible and doesn't really interest me.

      I know that Bob down the street believes homosexuality is capital E-evil because ... Leviticus (he also had to get rid of his beloved Pajama-Jeans: They LOOK like Denim but FEEL like PJs!--because, ALSO LEVITICUS ... no mixing fabrics)--so I can certainly see some issues with trying to implement an "eradicate evil plan." But if you're willing to call him evil, I'll settle for that level of agreement.

      I'll also say that while I (as noted) believe the state does not reach my level of trust to execute people both in competence (botched executions) and moral weight (I don't trust the people making those decisions as completely as necessary for my level of confidence), if they *were* to kill Breivik?

      I wouldn't complain one bit.