What’s Wrong with the World

I would like to associate myself with the sentiments of the editors in every respect.

Listening to BBC Radio this morning, I heard a someone say that if the Norwegian shooter turns out to be a "Christian fundamentalist", then the security measures that apply to Muslims at international airports etc., should be extended to all Christian travellers. In future, Christian leaders who go abroad to "spread their message", must be kept under surveillance in the interests of public safety.

This is exactly the sort of reaction that might be feared from the liberal media. They have been waiting for an atrocity that would 'prove' so-called Christian fundamentalists to be the moral equivalent of Muslim extremists.

I believe that this is a false-flag operation. It's just way too perfect and a leftist orgasmic dream coming true. For example: This Norwegian's bomber facebook page was created days or hours ago and the terms "Christian" and "conservative" were added to the main profile page. What the heck? Another is that far-right violence towards their own people is rare and is mostly directed at immigrants. Instead he killed his own fellow Norwegians. He also seems mentally ill and has been profiled as using anabolic steroids. Also he couldn't have done such a tremendous job alone and somebody must have trained him or helped him. He was raised liberal and he has a single mother. I've never though I'd say this (and I despise conspiracy theories) but maybe the left has created and used this event to smear the right and "Aha! Not all Muslims are terrorists! Take that!" cheer. In his manifesto (1500 pages long which suggests obsession) he has no problems with African immigrants (only Muslims ones), believes in liberty, talks about how Vlaams (?) and the EDL (or BNP) is too "extremist", despises "fascist tactics and how the left accuses the right of being fascist", is okay with homosexuality, says that he is not religious nor a Christian but agrees with Christianity for "cultural purposes" and so much more.

This may weird to Americans but youth in Europe may be part of "Antifa" which is an European leftist youth group which fashions its name to after "Anti-fascist". Particularly in Scandinavia the "Anti-Fascist Action" and "Red Youths" are a dangerous group of people. They are groomed to be future fanatical European leftist leaders. They're lethal little things, not harmless little puppies. That's not to say that the bomber didn't do a horrible thing. He did. What he did was an atrocity. But those youth aren't completely innocent either. A sizeable proportion of them are disturbing and dangerous. Many of them persecute and terrorize conservatives due to "hate speech" and "crime thought".

I overheard a radio news report that, after describing the murders, played a few moments of sublime singing from a national memorial service for the victims. With that juxtaposition I realized in a way I hadn't before that truth, goodness and beauty are the Christian responses to evil.

It does appear from his own words that he did not clearly identify himself as a Christian and in fact considered himself "not very religious."

Conspiracy theories are silly and remain silly. This evil monster did what he did because he chose to do it.

By the way, for future reference (and apropos of anonymous's comments, which skirt the edge), comments that approve of or excuse this wicked murderer's actions will be deleted with prejudice just as quickly as one of the contributors sees them.

The killer wrote "Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian." This killer, by his own words is to Christianity what progressives claim jihadists are to Islam.

Until proved otherwise, please stop spreading the message that he claimed to be a Christian...

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/who-added-christian-and-conservative-to-norway-shooters-facebook-page-yesterday.html

By the way, for future reference (and apropos of anonymous's comments, which skirt the edge), comments that approve of or excuse this wicked murderer's actions will be deleted with prejudice just as quickly as one of the contributors sees them.

I fail to see how anonymous skirted the edge here. All he/she implied was that this shooter and your typical antifascist youth are two sides of the same coin.

** And while we can agree that the shooting is tragic, we only have favorable media coverage to gauge their identities. It was a Labor Party summer camp. You cannot possibly expect the media to truthfully report the purpose of that camp if it was, in fact, established for the goal that anonymous suggests.

Ironically, Sam Harris actually came out and said that he strongly doubts that the man was motivated by Christianity:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/

(Last link I'll post, I swear!)

For a "new atheist" like Harris to take that position is pretty damning to the liberal narrative.

The shooting is evil. "Tragic" is when someone dies of cancer.

Mike, the editors' wording was very carefully qualified and should not be called "spreading the message that he claimed to be Christian."

The link to Geller's page is very interesting. I wish I thought Geller herself a more reliable source, but it does appear that the caches and what-not showing a change of the Facebook page after Breivik's arrest are being reported by a variety of readers and are not simply coming from Geller and her usual frustratingly anonymous sources.

Gerry, the idea that the murderer considered Christianity merely a social and "identity" marker was the impression I had gathered as well, and I think it significant: Ersatz "cultural identity" Christianity will not do. At all. It's a classic case of what C.S. Lewis called "Christianity and." In this case "Christianity and national identity." Bad news.

He may not be motivated by Christianity, but he surely was an anti-jihadist. He even blogged on anti-islamic sites and his so called manifest is full of anti-islamic, anti-multicultural and anti politcal correctness rant.
You can't explain away THAT, Mike.
By the way, the Norwegian Labour party is pretty much mainstream in Europe. You know, Tony Blair, the Christian ally of George W., was Labour as well. Labour has NOTHING to do with leftist, let alone communist Antifa groups. (And even if it had, so what?) "They're lethal little things, not harmless little puppies." - Shame on you, Mike, for solidarizing with such insane hatred. You think that's not skirting the edge? You are a nasty little ###.

I think there is hope, when the editors of a site like this, which stands for so many things I abhor, are as crystal clear about the wickedness of this crime as you've been. Thank you. I also very much appreciate Lydia's admonition. Cudos for that.

I believe that this is a false-flag operation. It's just way too perfect and a leftist orgasmic dream coming true. For example: This Norwegian's bomber facebook page was created days or hours ago and the terms "Christian" and "conservative" were added to the main profile page. What the heck? Another is that far-right violence towards their own people is rare and is mostly directed at immigrants.

The probability of this depends on the value of the targets, real or perceived, to the Labor Party. If they were being groomed as future leaders and senior apparatchiks, that makes the likelihood of it being a false flag operation very unlikely. The political elites simply don't offer up their young, designated successors for slaughter by the opposition.

He may not be motivated by Christianity, but he surely was an anti-jihadist. He even blogged on anti-islamic sites and his so called manifest is full of anti-islamic, anti-multicultural and anti politcal correctness rant. You can't explain away THAT, Mike.

What makes you think I care to explain that away. I agree that calling him "anti-islamic, anti-multicultural and anti politcal correctness" seems to be an accurate description of him.

Shame on you, Mike, for solidarizing with such insane hatred.

I haven't said a single thing here which expresses sympathy for what he did.

You think that's not skirting the edge? You are a nasty little ###.

No more so than when the Bible repeatedly warns that if you practice evil, it's almost a sure bet that evil will come knocking at your doorstep.

I think there is hope, when the editors of a site like this, which stands for so many things I abhor, are as crystal clear about the wickedness of this crime as you've been.

It says a lot about you that you think anyone here is really debating the wickedness of this crime.

The main point of disagreement on this blog (between the Christian authors and commenters) about the sanctity of human life isn't the extent of its coverage (ex. abortion and euthanasia) but how vigorously to punish those who disrespect it.

Well the NYT is already suggesting a 'refocusing' of anti-terror efforts towards anyone to the right of David Frum. All I can say is good job War-on-Terrorites, now the Reichstag is burnt and you're the enemy.

I spent a few hours yesterday reading through this monster's "manifesto" and and he did say, "Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian." (I'm just repeating Mr. Neal's quote, but I remember seeing the line.) He also took the time to explain why he thought that the participants of his "conservative revolution" should be united by Christianity and not Odinism, which implies that if he'd thought Odinism would work better as a uniting force in Europe he'd have done all his acts as an Odinist.

On the other hand, he did seem to believe in the Christian heaven and that God would forgive his sins of visiting prostitutes because he was to become a martyr. Don't misunderstand me -- I don't consider this man a Christian in any way. He broke the law through using steroids, attempted to buy illegal automatic weapons (and happily failed), slept with multiple prostitutes and then goes on to murder dozens of people. If we are to know him through his fruits, he is a horrible monster fit only for execution.

But everything in his manifesto that I read seems to suggest that he considered himself a Christian, believing in the Christian God's existence and in the existence of heaven. (I would provide specific quotations, but I really have no desire to spend any more time digging through that horrible document.) I get the impression (and I don't remember any direct support for this, so this is just my sense of how he felt as I read the manifesto) that he didn't pray or try to live a chaste life and that this is what he meant by his saying he wasn't particularly spiritual. I think he felt that failing to be "spiritual" would be considered minor sins in God's eyes because he's given his whole life to this fake "Knights Templar" cause.

In fact, I do remember he specifically wrote that God would see his visitation of prostitutes as a minor sin in light of his planned actions.

I certainly don't consider this wicked man a Christian in any way, but the manifesto reads like he thinks he is. In rebutting liberals who want to lump us in with him, we need to take this into account in our response or I worry we will be considered dishonest or poorly informed.

There is some emerging doubt whether he really is a Christian fundamentalist at all. He seems, to some experts, to be wholly ignorant of facets of Christian theology and its impact and implications on Norwegian culture and life:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/understanding-christian-fundamentalist-label-for-norway-terror-suspect/?hpt=hp_t2

In rebutting liberals who want to lump us in with him, we need to take this into account in our response or I worry we will be considered dishonest or poorly informed.

Don't they frequently say that just because the NASDAP and Hitler called themselves leftists, that doesn't make them leftists? Seems a fair card to play here...

I noticed a quote from Sam Harris' blog from the manifesto:

"It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would….If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past." (p. 1344)

I'd forgotten about this part of the manifesto. A quote like this seems to indicate that he isn't really sure of God's existence. I remember in other passages he seemed to me more sure, but he does say it took him three years to write the thing, so perhaps his opinions changed over time.

I don't know. I guess the picture is more fuzzy than I originally implied.

Mike T, I do agree it's a fair card to play, but I doubt it will be that effective.

I thought of wwww after hearing about the attackers ideologies, and have been checking periodically for comment. This is a clear and unequivocal condemnation, in contrast to previous posts that were somewhat less clear in their condemnation of terrorist attacks on doctors who perform abortions. I would be interested, as an observer, to hear more from the editors on whether their condemnation concerns the tactics or the ideology of the attacker. I hope it won't be taken as too accusatory, but to the occasional reader (who is far from appreciating every nuance of the views expressed here) there does seem to be considerable overlap in the ideology and rhetoric of the attacker and at least some of the bloggers at wwww. I don't want to get into an unproductive back and forth in comments, but simply put it to the editors that they may consider the question for a future post: is it the tactics or the beliefs of the attacker that are condemnable and to what extent iss wwww ideologically aligned with the attacker in standing athwart the powers of liberalism and jihad.

I also do not want to wade into the debate over efforts to downplay his Christian identity, though it is well to keep in mind the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and to consider that the attacker went out of his way to make biblical arguments for the use of violence in defense of Christendom. I would be interested to know whether the editors agree that Christendom is under assault, and whether they endorse strict non-violence in its defense or how they determine when violence is justified. But, again, I don't have the time or patience to get into a discussion in the comments so I just put these issues to the editors for consideration.

Jrshiple, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply. Christianity makes pretty clear that it considers murder to be wrong, so what Anders Breivik did was by definition anti-Christian, regardless of what he professes to believe. The anti-Christian nature of his acts are very important when considering his alleged Christian identity. You can say "well, I didn't want to get into that debate" but I'm not letting your statement there stand unchallenged. If you don't want to get into that debate, don't bring up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Frankly, I hope the editors will completely ignore jshiple's comment. It's ridiculous to imply that he needs clarification to see the difference between the editors at W4 and a crazed murderer. I consider it nothing more than a passive-aggressive insult.

"Norwegian law does not compass the penalty that this crime deserves"

Not only is there no Death Penalty, the maximum prison sentence he can receive is 21 years.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/23/police-alleged-norwegian-mass-murderer-faces-just-21-years-in-prison/

"Oslo police chief of staff Roger Andresen told the San Francisco Chronicle that the maximum prison term suspected killer Anders Behring Breivik could face is 21 years under Norwegian law."

Just in case anyone doubts this the same fact was repeated on the BBC news channel.

There is may be a historical parallel here. The Norway attacker seems to be "Christian" only in the loosest of senses in a similar fashion that the Sicarii were Jewish. It is less about theological or spiritual motivations, but instead political and nationalistic motivations to kill those whom you disagree with.

"Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

I seem to recall a passage in the second book of the Foundation Trilogy of Asimov's where the mayor had his logicians and linguists examine a communique by a foreign power and after eliminating all of the double talk, contradictions, etc., the content of the communique reduced to zero.

That seems to be the case with this quote. He does not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Well, that means he is ignorant of the effects of baptism (or even the personal conversion necessary of adult Christians). Christianity as a cultural platform? What the heck is a cultural platform? If he means that Christianity makes common uniform assumptions about certain things and this constitutes a culture, the he is knows nothing about that culture, since one of the markers of Christians is their adherence to Christ as the exemplar, "who did not deem equality with God [who has the power of life and death] something to be grasped at, but, rather, emptied himself, becoming a slave..." Moral platform? Odd moral platform that ignores the Ten Commandments.

Clearly, one is supposed to develop a Christian way of life before one acts, rather than hope that God will grant him one, afterwards. To do otherwise is the sin of presumption.

Too many people self-identify as Christians as a sort of cultural marker instead of clinging to it in fear and trembling as the way of perfection. I cannot speak for the Protestants, here, but, sadly, we see these "cultural Catholic" at every juncture in modern society. They call themselves Catholics, but ignore or misunderstand the Church's teaching on contraception, abortion, just wages, etc. They are very much confused at how to bake bread, much less on what authentic Christianity means. Christians are to be the leaven in the bread, not the bread in the leaven. They are to be the salt in the spaghetti, not the spaghetti.

If the reports of the man's activities before the attacks are correct, then it is clear that he did not understand Christian morality. He did not understand sin or repentance. Now, the darkening of the intellect due to sin can cause some people to think evil is a good, which appears to be part of the problem, here.

Clearly, the difference between his actions and those of the 9/11 attackers is that his was those of a single individual, who, apparently, had no Christian friends who either recognized his mental illness or challenged his beliefs, whereas the 9/11 attack had a whole hierarchy of people working, together, in concert. Christians who act as Christians, alone, in isolation, are almost always, barring extraordinary graces, setting themselves up for delusions. Christianity was meant to be a self-checking community, if it were meant to be any kind of community. Where were his brothers and sisters in Christ? Were they as screwed up as he?

If this is a False Flag operation, may it be exposed quickly. If this were the act of a seriously sin-sick and mentally ill individual, then may God bring him to conversion, that he may truly appreciate the harm he has done. I condemn his actions even while, as a Christian, I am under obligation to pray for for his soul (although I realize what St. Paul had to say about murderers).

I would be very surprised if Noway learned the correct lesson - it is not Christians who need to be suspected, but the mentally ill who need to get help.

The Chicken

Josh, it seems quite clear that the killer did not conceive of his actions as murder in the sense you mean. So unless you're prepared to argue that no true Christian could make a mistake about when killing is murder (ie, wrongful killing) and when it is not I think the caution about committing that fallacy stands, as does the need for wwww to clarify its position on non-violence and their perception that Christendom is under attack. After all, surely killing an attacker is not murder.

Besides, don't Christians believe we're all sinners. Since when was committing a sin inconsistent with being a Christian, Josh?

Having said that, I don't have the time or inclination to read the manifesto and decide for myself whether and what sort of Christian the attacker was, so I'll not press the issue further.

No one was attacking in Norway, so this is murder, plain and simple. Also, Committing a sin IS inconsistent with being a Christian. That is why it IS called a sin.

MC, I agree with much of what you say, but not this:

I would be very surprised if Noway learned the correct lesson - it is not Christians who need to be suspected, but the mentally ill who need to get help.

When we confront truly grave evil, it always has the mark of insanity, because, qua evil, it simply has no sufficient cause. What it has is deficient cause, and that is always harbored in a mind that is losing or has lost some connection with reality at the moment of the evil choice (a willful acceptance that this false appearance of good is the true good). To choose evil knowingly is to embrace being separated from reality in a certain manner.

But not in a manner that requires medical "treatment" per se. The primary need for people who chose evil is conversion, repentance, and forgiveness. But this won't happen without their accepting that the choices made are a kind of departure from reality. That acceptance and turning away from the false will be the beginning of the "healing" of their insanity. The traditional teaching is that punishment is appropriate to start that process: by being made to suffer evil, the perpetrator may come to realize that his own act is the cause of his suffering, and repudiate the wrongfulness of his act in bearing the result. But it doesn't happen in a "justice" system that cannot even figure out why they ought to punish with penalties that are commensurate with the crimes.

Masked Chicken, this monster wasn't mentally ill, he's a psychopath. His actions, as crazy as they seem to us, were planned out with cold precision. A mentally ill person's thinking is impaired by his condition, Breivik showed no impairment in the way he carried out his horrible deeds. The only impairment a psychopath has is that he/she has no empathy toward their fellow human beings and no conscience. The only thing you can do with a fiend like Breivik is to execute them or lock them up for life. Unless someone kills him in the near future, he will be free in 21 years under Norweigian law. No Breivik isn't insane, but liberalism is!

The primary need for people who chose evil is conversion, repentance, and forgiveness.

I did say that in my post, although, perhaps, not clearly and without any detailed analysis:

If this were the act of a seriously sin-sick and mentally ill individual, then may God bring him to conversion, that he may truly appreciate the harm he has done.

One does not have to be mentally ill to do harm, although evil actions result from a distortion of reality. I don't think we are disagreeing. I agree as to the medicinal properties of punishment, in general.

A mentally ill person's thinking is impaired by his condition, Breivik showed no impairment in the way he carried out his horrible deeds. The only impairment a psychopath has is that he/she has no empathy toward their fellow human beings and no conscience.

Psychopaths, as I understand the term, are mentally ill, at least according to the DSM-IV. His moral sense certainly is impaired.

From reports on Slashdot, where people have read his manifesto, his thinking is totally inconsistent: he goes to prostitutes and is a Mason, but values the Knights Templars and, apparently, the Catholic Church??.

I am not trying to give him any sort of pass. He just reminds me of the Unibomber, who showed a similar monomaniacal bent and was clinically insane.

If I were of a mind to be a conspiracy person, this is a great way to undermine what remains of Christianity in Europe.

The Chicken

Just stumbled across the following excellent, terse psychoanalysis of Breivik, provided by British conservative writer and psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple (whom Breivik incidentally cited as inspiration in his manifesto):

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/261160/Norway-massacre-The-mind-of-Anders-Breivik

"Several ingredients must be in the witch’s brew of Anders Breivik’s mind. First is resentment; second, self-importance; third, the desire for fame or notoriety; fourth, the search for a transcendent meaning to life, and fifth, a difficulty in forming ordinary human relationships, whether of love or friendship. A final precondition is an above-average level of intelligence, for this is necessary in order to rationalise the commission of a deed that would otherwise be repugnant."

As has already been said by others in other places, if the environmentalist left didn't need to abandon their environmentalist beliefs and policy prescriptions because of the Unibomber, the anti-jihadist conservatives certainly need not apologize for their opinions and policy prescriptions because of this evil murderer. I certainly do not.

What we do need to say is that he was an evil murderer and that we utterly condemn what he has done.

Which leads me to go back to Anonymous's strange comments above. For the sake of all that is good! It does not in the slightest matter that these young people were being groomed to be leftist politicians! It is utterly wicked even to hint that our "political enemies" are "not innocent" in any way that is relevant to their being slaughtered! In the sense relevant to murder, these certainly and undeniably were innocent victims.

I hope it won't be taken as too accusatory, but to the occasional reader (who is far from appreciating every nuance of the views expressed here) there does seem to be considerable overlap in the ideology and rhetoric of the attacker and at least some of the bloggers at wwww.

Mr. Breivik was far from appreciating certain nuances as well. So you and he have something in common.

The commenter would do well, if indeed he or she has the time and patience, to examine this website's frequently-criticized judgment that the atomic bombing of Japanese cities in the Second World War (along with a considerable portion of conventional bombing of Germany) was morally indefensible. Another topic of interest to the commenter seeking an informed opinion would be torture and the treatment of Terror War detainees.

"Josh, it seems quite clear that the killer did not conceive of his actions as murder in the sense you mean. So unless you're prepared to argue that no true Christian could make a mistake about when killing is murder (ie, wrongful killing) and when it is not I think the caution about committing that fallacy stands, as does the need for wwww to clarify its position on non-violence and their perception that Christendom is under attack. After all, surely killing an attacker is not murder."

This case of murder simply isn't ambiguous by any remotely reasonable standard. Perhaps borderline cases exist ("is X murder or not?"), but that isn't at all relevant to this discussion because it is not a borderline case.

"Besides, don't Christians believe we're all sinners. Since when was committing a sin inconsistent with being a Christian, Josh?"

Since always, but you mean that Christians often do sin and yet are somehow still considered Christian. This case is different because of the egregious nature of his rejection of Christian morality.

Forgive the self-quotage:

"I will admit that it gave me sharp pause: someone types out his concerns of creeping Islamization of Europe, which I share in substantial part, and then goes and murders nearly a hundred young campers. I now know the disquiet progressives must have felt from time to time these past ten years, hearing jihadists repeat their own denunciations of the First World, while waving severed Western heads."

The commenter would do well, if indeed he or she has the time and patience, to examine this website's frequently-criticized judgment that the atomic bombing of Japanese cities in the Second World War (along with a considerable portion of conventional bombing of Germany) was morally indefensible. Another topic of interest to the commenter seeking an informed opinion would be torture and the treatment of Terror War detainees.

I certainly hope this wasn't intended as an answer to jrshiple's comment:

there does seem to be considerable overlap in the ideology and rhetoric of the attacker and at least some of the bloggers at wwww.

Because that would be troubling. Suppose Breivik agreed with you on "terror war detainees" and Hiroshima? And for those that don't hold that Hiroshima was "morally indefensible," would this mean they'd have no way of condemning what Breivik did?

I am reluctant to search for clues in this man's 'political philosophy' or to examine the scope of his alleged 'Christian fundamentalism' in order to explain why he committed mass murder.

Breivik's crime was so enormous and so incredibly inhuman and his attempts to justify it so contemptible, that it's probably reasonable to suppose that he's a criminal lunatic who will be defended on grounds of his insanity. What he says he believes hardly matters - except to the media who want to associate Christianity, social conservatism, and 'Islamophobia' with this outrage.

There are some people - very few thank God - who are evil but rational savages who rejoice in their wickedness. I believe Breivik is one of them.

Mark, I was offering jrshiple (supposing, again, he or she has the time or patience) some suggestions for examining that nuance mentioned up thread. I'm not much interested in pursuing whatever peculiar implications your logic-chopping has led you to this time.

A small correction: The maximum sentence of 21 years in Norway is only true in the sense that that's the maximum immediate sentence one can receive. Anders Breivik will probably be sentenced to 21 years and "forvaring" (roughly: custody) meaning that after the 21 years, a court will reconvene and may sentence him to five more years at a time. It's like a life sentence with automatic, periodic appeals.

there does seem to be considerable overlap in the ideology and rhetoric of the attacker and at least some of the bloggers at wwww.

There's overlap like this all across the spectrum. If you can't find it, that simply means you're not looking hard enough.

"I will admit that it gave me sharp pause: someone types out his concerns of creeping Islamization of Europe, which I share in substantial part, and then goes and murders nearly a hundred young campers. I now know the disquiet progressives must have felt from time to time these past ten years, hearing jihadists repeat their own denunciations of the First World, while waving severed Western heads."

Vox Day has repeatedly observed that if the moderates don't take action now, the hard right and Fascist left will take action at some point. That point is likely fast approaching with the collapsing of the global economy. Those wringing their hands about this and thinking about caving would do well to realize how savage even otherwise good people can get when their economy is in the toilet and their individual and familial survival is at stake. All kinds of political problems can and will arise if this isn't addressed sooner, rather than later.

there does seem to be considerable overlap in the ideology and rhetoric of the attacker and at least some of the bloggers at wwww.

Because that would be troubling. Suppose Breivik agreed with you on "terror war detainees" and Hiroshima? And for those that don't hold that Hiroshima was "morally indefensible," would this mean they'd have no way of condemning what Breivik did?

Mark, commenters here at W4 are all over the map on MOST issues. What Lydia and I agree on, Al does not. What Al and I agree on, Matt doesn't. Opinions that "some of the bloggers" here have doesn't signify a useful set to talk about the website. In any case, every person who blogs here has adequate grounds to repudiate Breivik's actions. Nobody here has ever suggested that murdering innocent children as a means to making a statement is acceptable. Please don't drag our discussion down to jrshiple's level, it was an extremely trollish remark.

this and thinking about caving...

Actually, I have been thinking about caving for awhile, but I just can't seem to find the right rock formation to suit my needs. I would need a cave near running water to do laundry and with some trees for cooking and firewood, but not too many as to be part of a forest fire. If I ever get married, Mrs. Chicken and I would need a little alcove off to the side for the little chicks. Also, it would have to be near level borne - no rock slides.

Yes, there are some days when moving to a cave looks downright inviting.

The Chicken

Mark, do you think that everyone who thinks Western civilization is in some sort of decline or is corrupt is cut from the same cloth? As if, say, both Solzhenitsyn's and Khomeini's complaints about the West were rooted together in something other than a revulsion to decadence?

I daresay that the Islamicist critique of Western culture has a lot in common with that of the Eastern European Christian critique of same. This does not mean, however, that such critique comes from the same place, as should be patently obvious.

@Masked Chicken:

From memory: it is said of one of the Desert Fathers that upon finding a cavern suitable to live, he went in. The cavern was already inhabited by a lion, who started growling over the unwanted visitor. The Holy Man retorted something like this: "This cave is big enough for both of us. If you are unhappy, then leave." And the lion not being able to withstand him, left.

Nobody here has ever suggested that murdering innocent children as a means to making a statement is acceptable. Please don't drag our discussion down to jrshiple's level, it was an extremely trollish remark.

Um, Tony. I didn't say, nor do I think, that Paul needed to provide an answer to jrshipley's charge. What I was concerned about was what appeared to be a troubling answer based on some projected agreement with him on other matters, agreements which may not be true and wouldn't matter in any case.

Burnishing certain credentials to try to curry favor with those who oppose you is never a good idea. I may be wrong since Paul's comment was so oblique and he may have had some other purpose. But if that is the approach it is a troubling one. It's of the same logical form as the "hey we're on your side, we're anti-Semitic too" crowd.

But Paul may have had some other purpose, so I didn't mean to indict him on this without further comment.

There's a Mrs. Chicken and little chicks? :-)

Vox Day has repeatedly observed that if the moderates don't take action now, the hard right and Fascist left will take action at some point.

But in general, if liberalism isn't banished to the status of historical relic clinged to only by your wacky incompetent uncle, what we are going to get is going to be very Nazi-like but on an unprecedented scale

That point is likely fast approaching with the collapsing of the global economy.

And for those that don't hold that Hiroshima was "morally indefensible," would this mean they'd have no way of condemning what Breivik did?

So someone who

(1) agrees with a significant number of Breivik's stated goals - reduction of Mohammedan immigration into the West, etc; and

(2) is a consequentialist, as demonstrated by support for the Hiroshima bombing;

... is on very weak ground when it comes to absolute moral condemnation of Breivik's actions. Such a person might condemn Breivik's actions on the basis that they did not and will not result in desirable consequences, of course. But he is incapable of consistent absolute moral condemnation of Breivik's actions.

Mark, do you think that everyone who thinks Western civilization is in some sort of decline or is corrupt is cut from the same cloth? As if, say, both Solzhenitsyn's and Khomeini's complaints about the West were rooted together in something other than a revulsion to decadence?

I think you misunderstood my comment, but no I don't think that. In fact I think it a shame that the commenters here who "think Western civilization is in some sort of decline or is corrupt" don't refer to Solzhenitsyn. It would be agreeable to me if they would. If you want to be a prophet, be a prophet. Unfortunately, what we most frequently have is people who use various tired "decline" thesis to advance political ideas that Solzhenitsyn rejected on the same grounds.

And if you think Khomeini has any problem whatever with decadence, you are sadly mistaken. It is somewhat revealing that your quip about Solzhenitsyn and Khomeini sharing a "revulsion to decadence" and your implication that I may think they are "cut from the same cloth." They don't share a revulsion for decadence. Khomeini is a Pan-Arabist and could not care less about decadence. It sounds like *you* think they are cut from the same cloth. I don't think they share anything non-trivial, and a real revulsion for decadence would not be at all trivial. I am fairly amazed at the effort that is expended by some to show how similarity of views does not matter. Of course it does.

There's a Mrs. Chicken and little chicks? :-)

Alas, no. I said:

If I ever get married, Mrs. Chicken and I would need a little alcove off to the side for the little chicks.

My twin brother (yes, there is one - identical, also in academia) is married to a doctor, but no chicks, yet.

The Chicken

P. S. He has no idea I comment on blogs. Of course, he and his wife, together, make ten times my salary and I keep telling him that making a ten percent tithe to the poor (me) wouldn't really inconvenience them all that much and I would have a living wage. I have thought of asking him to start a joint blog or even a pod cast, but he has almost no time (he just retired as department chair and bought a new house). Also, coming up with a good name for the blog has always stopped me, in the past.

Anyways, thanks for listening. Back to the Sturm und Drang.

If you want to be a prophet, be a prophet.

Someone once wrote that a detective is a prophet looking backwards.

I have no idea if the West is in decline because one must always preface that remark with, "If things stay they way they are...," Who knows? We might discover the secret to cold fusion, tomorrow and then everyone can fly off to their own planet.

The best we can say is that under any circumstances, THIS is not a good way to live.

The Chicken

Is's always great to see lectures on the consequences consequentialism. So many lessons there.

I suspect that ABB was not a "true believer," as he even admits in his manifesto that he's "not very religious." He's definitely not a fundamentalist. I suspect he's a type of cultural Christian (interested in maintaing Europe's Christian symbols, etc.), as are others on the European right.

He, however, was definitely into using Medieval Christian imagery, esp. of the warrior knightly caste, as his video attests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLk1zv6u7_Q

"I am fairly amazed at the effort that is expended by some to show how similarity of views does not matter."

Similarity of views matters more the deeper it is rooted. That even ideological opposites occasionally have similar views should come as no surprise, but this does not necessarily mean that there is some deeper underlying agreement. Nat Hentoff and Phyllis Schlafly are both anti-abortion, but their reasons for being so are not the same. Neo-agrarians and libertarians are both against current farm subsidy policy but not for the same reasons. Etc., etc.

That even ideological opposites occasionally have similar views should come as no surprise, but this does not necessarily mean that there is some deeper underlying agreement.

Some days, I even disagree with myself. I try to agree with myself as much as possible, but sometimes, I just can't.

The Chicken

I think the impending collapse of the global economy is greatly exaggerated in some circles. If the US declines to raise the debt limit, we will likely see the delicious irony of T-bills being downgraded by ratings agencies while at the same time appreciating in value. If that happens, and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth and dire predictions of impending doom, I personally am going to go shopping for all the bargain-priced equities which will be on sale.

I don't fear the debt ceiling issue or even a default. What I fear is what happens when the federal government decides who gets priority with the revenues. I expect them to err on the side of alienating welfare and social security recipients, not the core federal functions such as the Departments of Justice, Defense, State and Treasury.

If they're smart, they'll use this as an opportunity to break the back of Social Security and Medicare, if not outright eliminate them. While some politicians would lose their offices, recipients of those programs tend to be far less capable of turning their outrage into violent retaliation than veterans and young welfare recipients.

Mark Richardson suggests that he's a nutcase.

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2011/07/breiviks-odd-political-combination.html

As I said there, my first reaction was to assume that he was a right-winger that had descended into the nihilism that can follow from hopelessness (a focus on Christian "culture" doesn't help here). After seeing excerpts from his manifesto, my reaction was that he's a really calculating/rationalizing, cold-blooded type. But his "calculations" are so bizzare and inconsistent that I think he's a screwball with multiple personalities.

He repeatedly wrote "we" in reference to his organization but I wonder if "we" isn't his multiple personalities/voices inside his head.

While some politicians would lose their offices, recipients of those programs tend to be far less capable of turning their outrage into violent retaliation than veterans and young welfare recipients.

Yeah, who needs old people...some of whom were veterans, by the way...

The Chickens

Yeah, who needs old people...some of whom were veterans, by the way...

We have a $1.4-$1.5T deficit, much of which is caused by an increase in social spending. Someone is going to get screwed. Pick your poison. At least with screwing over future Social Security and Medicare recipients, there is some justice in the fact that they didn't elect politicians who responsibly maintained those systems.

At least with screwing over future Social Security and Medicare recipients, there is some justice in the fact that they didn't elect politicians who responsibly maintained those systems.

So, blanket condemnation for all of the old people... even those who didn't vote or couldn't vote (as in their were Black and poor at the time). People do not make laws. Legislators do. They seldom do what we ask of them to do, so blaming the old people is not justice. It is messing them over, twice: once for daring to hope and once for the betrayal. The notion that a representative government works really well fails once there is no equality between those governing and the governed. If there is disparity, the governers usually become benign overseers of the chattering masses. It is precisely the separation between the old and poor or middle class and the legislators in terms of life understanding that makes it the fault of the legislators much more than the old.

Now, if you want to cut off the pensions of congress, that I could get behind.

The Chicken

Oh, and my apologies to the editors. We are getting a bit far afield of the topic.

The Chicken

People do not make laws. Legislators do.

Not to imply that legislators are not people...

Sorry, last comment on this topic.

The Chicken

"Several ingredients must be in the witch’s brew of Anders Breivik’s mind. First is resentment; second, self-importance; third, the desire for fame or notoriety; fourth, the search for a transcendent meaning to life, and fifth, a difficulty in forming ordinary human relationships, whether of love or friendship. A final precondition is an above-average level of intelligence, for this is necessary in order to rationalise the commission of a deed that would otherwise be repugnant."

Absolute nonsense from start to finish. Brevik had little trouble with relationships, there's little indication that his resentment formed anything but a background to his cause, he was less self-important than attentive to the views of writers he respected (hence his willingness to quote nearly everyone else,) and if you think you need intelligence to rationalize vicious deeds of mass murder, I have some real estate in Compton to sell you.

That said, given that:

1. He admired Al Qaeda...
2. He thought bin Laden was an ideal leader...
3. His methods and execution mirrored Islamist style from Iran to Beslan...

Shouldn't this be construed as a case of: "Despairing of all hope, he adopted the tactics of his enemy"?

Even his 'Christianity' is but a simple mirror of the mindset of the jihadi, in the uncertainty of attaining heaven, the assumption of the lack of knowledge of God's approval, and the belief of Christianity as a 'cultural, social and political platform' (like Islam, y'know, actually is.)

Having lived nowhere but within the Enemy's viewpoint for many years, he could not think in anything but the Enemy's terms. And that, truly, is the most tragic aspect of this whole episode. Not that he did such evil, but that he could have done far more good. He was, first, a missed opportunity.

And the primary responsibility for such an opportunity wasted I can only place at the feet of the socialist father who left him at a young age, then suddenly came back following his notoriety suggesting that he kill himself. (All of a sudden I see where he gets his hatred for all life from.)

The name I'm looking for is not Brevik, but Nikabrik. And he may yet follow a path away from the pit, if shown a way not previously mapped by the haters of life.

Similarity of views matters more the deeper it is rooted. That even ideological opposites occasionally have similar views should come as no surprise, but this does not necessarily mean that there is some deeper underlying agreement. Nat Hentoff and Phyllis Schlafly are both anti-abortion, but their reasons for being so are not the same. Neo-agrarians and libertarians are both against current farm subsidy policy but not for the same reasons. Etc., etc.

Nice, ideological opposites often share common cause. I make common cause with many ideological opposites. But in doing so we either implicitly explicitly give credit where credit is due in endorsing their acceptance of our position on a given issue. That's the rub. You want to say it doesn't matter if there are similarities with group X, and then won't tell you what it is they share or can't defend the assertion you've made. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that I think the "revulsion to decadence" you are referring to isn't what you think it is in Khomeni, but it is deeply rooted, and it shows why they can't be compared in the way you did without implicating Solzhenitsyn in a way he shouldn't be. Solzhenitsyn and Khomeini share nothing that is "deeply-rooted" that I can think of. That's instructive isn't it? If you think I'm wrong, then tell me what you think they share?

Common cause on the anti-abortion issue among different ideological stripes has long been noted. They do this because they are both convinced the other is right on the issue of abortion, if no other. So it all depends on what you share, and the devil is in the details. People that share views, however narrowly, shouldn't mind telling you about it and why. But saying "Hey so what if I have similarities to Charles Manson" just invites the question: "Oh, which ones?" Taste for vanilla ice-cream? Oh that's a relief. Anti-semitism? Well, about that . . .

The name I'm looking for is not Brevik, but Nikabrik.

Good point. He does have that "kill the patient in order to cure the problem" sort of approach.

Mark, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but it sounds like, "Similarity of ideas are important except when they are not."

That doesn't get us very far.

The shooting is evil. "Tragic" is when someone dies of cancer.

Ilion, I meant the wicked kind of evil. As in "evil person acting accordingly" not "natural evil." But you'll have to admit, "tragic" is worse than either.

Mark, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but it sounds like, "Similarity of ideas are important except when they are not." That doesn't get us very far.

Nice, I said it all depends, so your snide "is except when it isn't" isn't very clever. That is logically identical to saying "it all depends," which is what I said. Many things can't be generalized.

You said "ideological opposites occasionally have similar views . . . but this does not necessarily mean that there is some deeper underlying agreement." No, it doesn't necessarily, but ideological opposites with similar views should have no trouble explaining why their opponents are right on what they share, and they shouldn't be surprised by the question. You gave the examples of anti-abortion and anti-farm subsidy. Both great examples. See how easy that was? Wouldn't both groups say "they are right on this one issue, because they agree with us on it"? Isn't that what common ground means?

You started by giving a Solzhenitsyn/Khomeini comparison, which I undermined and you've not attempted to defend, that looks to me like it was intended to support this statement:

I daresay that the Islamicist critique of Western culture has a lot in common with that of the Eastern European Christian critique of same.

So if the Islamicist critique of Western culture has "a lot" in common with whatever Christian one you have in mind, then can you just give a few examples of the most significant ones that you think there are so I can understand what you think they have in common? You gave some great examples of common ground, but they don't support your thesis about the Islamicist critique.

I have no idea if the West is in decline because one must always preface that remark with, "If things stay they way they are...," Who knows?

MC: This is a circumspect view, and it's my view. It all depends. I have trouble with those who stridently declare it. History is replete with these folks doing so. One day they'll be right. Like the old joke about the economist who "successfully predicted 5 out of the last 2 recessions."

I wonder if his whole spiel about the PCCTS/Knights Templar is actually an attempt to incite copycat attacks.

I do have one question for the board: if abortion is murder, and if bombing an abortion clinic - killing the abortionist, say, but not the women - is a defense of an innocent life, why would bombing an abortion clinic be wrong?

Also - I know this is going on a stretch, but you never know who might visit this page - is anyone else eerily reminded of the second season of Ghost in the Shell. This guys' manifesto could become the equivalent of Patrick Sylvester's, and the PCCTS the Individual Eleven, minus the whole Gouda conspiracy thing.

To clarify the above post, I do not condone the bombing of abortion clinics or killing of abortionists.

I do have one question for the board: if abortion is murder, and if bombing an abortion clinic - killing the abortionist, say, but not the women - is a defense of an innocent life, why would bombing an abortion clinic be wrong?

Christian morality frowns on private parties taking such judgment into their hands. That's for God and the institutions He created to handle. It is not our place to render such judgment.

That said, abortionists are just state-sanctioned contract killers. The only difference between an abortionist and mafia hitman is the latter has the decency to be honest about how he draws his paycheck.

So, blanket condemnation for all of the old people... even those who didn't vote or couldn't vote (as in their were Black and poor at the time). People do not make laws. Legislators do. They seldom do what we ask of them to do, so blaming the old people is not justice. It is messing them over, twice: once for daring to hope and once for the betrayal. The notion that a representative government works really well fails once there is no equality between those governing and the governed. If there is disparity, the governers usually become benign overseers of the chattering masses. It is precisely the separation between the old and poor or middle class and the legislators in terms of life understanding that makes it the fault of the legislators much more than the old.

It's the duty of every citizen to wield an informed vote. Most of this would never have happened if most voters possessed that civic virtue. The reason our system is failing is because most Americans want a say in government about the few things that matter to them, but leave to others holding accountable the leadership on the things which are boring to the public. Every citizen has a duty to make whatever he can do to shepherd the fate of the republic his personal responsibility.

When the various Eastern European countries that were under communism became open to Western influence, many in those nations, like Solzhenitsyn, were surprised and quite taken back by the level of materialism and cultural decadence present in the supposedly Christian West. Many Muslims, and not just jihadists or "fundamentalists," have expressed similar concerns. What these two groups have in common is an adherence to a religion with intact traditional elements, either Orthodoxy or Catholicism on the one hand or Islam on the other. This traditionalism informs their adherents' views on such things as sexuality, modesty, and humility, and in this regard there are similarities of outlook.

Anders Breivik is a Freemason. -> http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/07/breaking-oslo-terrorist-is-freemason.html

"The shooting is evil. "Tragic" is when someone dies of cancer."

The shooting event itself was most certainly evil. The tragic aspect is the fact that Brevik was right on almost every other count in his manifesto, yet instead of at least choosing, say, a violent Muslim street gang (of the type he knew very, very well from his childhood as a "Norwigga",) to kill first, he chose innocent dupes. In the end no one showed him how to transcend the petty hatred, careerism, and contemptible cowardice of his father.

Or, he could have been Batman, or at least the Punisher, and he chose to be Ra's Al-ghul.

I do have one question for the board: if abortion is murder, and if bombing an abortion clinic - killing the abortionist, say, but not the women - is a defense of an innocent life, why would bombing an abortion clinic be wrong?

More specifically, in Christianity, earthly punishment for wickedness is the domain of the soverign. The BCP acknowledges this explicitly: "impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion....."

Claasically, tragedy is the case that when one sets out to do good, one winds up doing evil, instead, due to a flaw in one's personality. Tragedy is the mirror image of humor, where one succeeds in doing good, despite oneself.

Using this definition, Breivik's actions were not tragic, since the killing, the knowing and deliberate killing, of objective innocents is not setting out to do an objective good, a priori. His actions were misguided, due to a character flaw, but this just makes his actions morally negligent, not tragic. In tragedy, it is the moral flaw that allows for mercy. In his case, if his actions are deliberate and done with knowledge of their moral value, then he us simply a killer - insane, perhaps, which might allow for mercy, but his actions do not meet the criteria for tragedy.

The Chicken

It is true that Christian thinkers have preferred to work through existing institutions, and it is also true that some Christian thinkers believe that revolution is *never* licensed. However, the majority of Christians have sanctioned revolution in some cases; and given that abortion has resulted in over 46 millions deaths - enough to make Hitler look like child's play - revolution must certainly be capable of sanction now if it ever was provided fetuses have the same rights as adults. Moreover, beginning the bombings in a decentralized fashion should be considered a form of guerrilla warfare.

As for all these wild claims about how correct this nut's ideology was, how many of you have even met a Muslim? I lived with one. He wasn't so bad. It is true that some Muslim youth in Europe are radicalized, but the percentage estimate varies heavily depending on the source; the only sources I've seen depicting the majority of youth as Islamists are already right-wing. The prediction that mMslims are going to take over Europe is also flawed, as this Snopes article describes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp

If I had to pick a terrorist, it certainly wouldn't be this guy - it'd be Ted Kaczynski. Industrial Society and Its Future was far more pertinent to contemporary society than anything Rawls or Nozick wrote and his killings, while unsanctionable, were kept to the minimum needed for his purposes.

In the case of abortion, the MOTHER wants to kill the child. Bombing clinics doesn't change this.

In the case of abortion, the MOTHER wants to kill the child. Bombing clinics doesn't change this.

And yet I've been denounced as a violent extremist on this blog by some of the contributors for having the temerity to suggest trying at least a few women caught in the act for murder in the first degree (along with the staff).

If I had to pick a terrorist, it certainly wouldn't be this guy - it'd be Ted Kaczynski. Industrial Society and Its Future was far more pertinent to contemporary society than anything Rawls or Nozick wrote and his killings, while unsanctionable, were kept to the minimum needed for his purposes.

Um, what? "Pick" him for what? To support? Wow. And they call conservatives extremists!

"Claasically, tragedy is the case that when one sets out to do good, one winds up doing evil, instead, due to a flaw in one's personality. Tragedy is the mirror image of humor, where one succeeds in doing good, despite oneself."

So if this event ironically serves as the wake-up call to Norway's silent majority to expel the Islamic threat from their country, that would make this whole event....humorous?

Read the last three chapters of Judges again. God let the Israelites get slaughtered twice before giving the Benjamites into their hands, due to the fact that the same corruption and disloyalty that led the Benjamites to commit their horrific deed was present in the rest of the body politic as well. Funny? Sure! About as funny as Abraham Lincoln's second Inaugural Address.

"Using this definition, Breivik's actions were not tragic, since the killing, the knowing and deliberate killing, of objective innocents is not setting out to do an objective good, a priori. His actions were misguided, due to a character flaw, but this just makes his actions morally negligent, not tragic. In tragedy, it is the moral flaw that allows for mercy. In his case, if his actions are deliberate and done with knowledge of their moral value, then he us simply a killer - insane, perhaps, which might allow for mercy, but his actions do not meet the criteria for tragedy."

Oh really? You don't think that, say, a scion of Norway's cultural elite, who rebelled against their strictures, attempted to seek the truth online post-9/11, weighed every secular option through experiments and councilors, and operated in dangerous obscurity when he could have very easily gone with the flow of lefty Norwegian society, and then threw it all away in an act of deeply-held vengeance against those who betrayed him might be just a little bit...tragic? He was, in the end, no more evil than the philosophies he imbibed. That he did not or could not seek the Lord in his lonely quest for meaning, nor find someone who could break him out of a purely secular-right mold, shows only the futility of attempting to do good without God.

The police and security personnel who simply stood and watched while he gunned down his targets (and while the woman was raped on the steps of the courthouse) were the most truly contemptible ones. (If Brevik were put in charge of the Norwegian police today, do you doubt they'd increase dramatically in effectiveness and evenhandedness?) Not to mention his disgracefully deadbeat father, whose only act upon learning of the incident was to disavow responsibility and encourage the suicide of a man far more honest, noble, and dedicated to doing good than him.

Brevik was a person of deep and abiding evil. But, all his life, he fought as hard as he could against joining the ranks of the People of the Lie. He is a Pharisee at worst, not a Sadducee. And that's why there's still hope for his personal salvation, and, perhaps, a true Christian revival in Norway.

Um, what? "Pick" him for what? To support? Wow. And they call conservatives extremists!

Of course, Lydia, I am not suggesting that I condone his behavior. But suppose God gave me some kind of power to go back in time and eliminate all terrorists through history save one; let us suppose history would, for the most part, play out as it has regardless. Then, given that I had to leave one, I would leave behind Kaczynski.

Or maybe I'd leave Kaczynski behind even if I could get rid of him. That is because I could easily imagine it being the case that his voicing his ideas will, in the long run, lead to better consequences. But that does not imply I would condone his behavior; he still committed a wrong, regardless of the consequences. I'm not sure I would be doing wrong not to have eliminated his wrong-doings.

I am not sure that I am not in some respects a conservative - I don't frequent this blog *only* to be an opposition, although that is the role I prefer to take for the sake of discussion. Some of my friends consider me dangerously right-wing. That said, I think Kaczynski's thesis about technology and the loss of the "power process" is correct, and that to some degree he is right to think that American conservatism faces internal tension. Industrialization, he claims, and cultural conservatism cannot coexist; industrial growth subverts traditional community. Liberal policies, however counter-cultural they see themselves as being, actually play into making the industrial system run more smoothly - nothing keeps the profits of a corporation churning like the end of "discrimination", after all, since a company which hires skilled employees of any religion, say, has a more skilled labor pool than one which only hires Christians. A Christian-only firm will be out-competed; even if not, the end of "discrimination" would ultimatel lead to greater market efficiency.

No, E., whoever you are, you are not going to make this man into some kind of grand, tragic figure. It's astonishing: Watching while innocents are gunned down is contemptible but actually doing the gunning down isn't??? No. Absolutely no. Of course, even contemptible people who do contemptible things can be saved. That's not the point. But this "those who betrayed him" stuff has gotta go.

Frankly, the moment we start seeing people, real people, as symbols and start accusing them of specific, concrete crimes ("They betrayed so-and-so") on the basis solely of their being part of an ideological elite, that is the moment when we cross a line that must not be crossed. That is a moment of accepting an insane counter-ideology.

I thought tragedy was when a basically good person is tempted to indulge their darkside and thereby brings ruin down on themselves as well as others. Macbeth is a tragedy because the basically decent Macbeth is tempted by the witches' prophecy to indulge his murderous ambitions. So Breivik could be seen as a basically decent guy who indulged his darkside as a result of seeing enemies all around him, but I don't even know if he was a decent person--he might just be a nutter in general.

Kaczynski had some good points, but one ought not to mail bombs to people, and after mailing bombs to people one ought not expect them to listen to one's good points anymore. A good rule of thumb is that real, actual people should not be sacrificed for the nebulous greater good.

'to some degree he is right to think that American conservatism faces internal tension. Industrialization, he claims, and cultural conservatism cannot coexist; industrial growth subverts traditional community. Liberal policies, however counter-cultural they see themselves as being, actually play into making the industrial system run more smoothly - nothing keeps the profits of a corporation churning like the end of "discrimination"'

Hey, I believe all that, but guess what? Never once have I thought about blowing someone up as a result, and it's just ridiculous to say, "Well, the Unabomber had a point." So what? Even Hitler got a few things right (and before anyone starts the b.s., no, I don't mean about the Jews.)

No, this guy is either demented or evil or perhaps some combination of both. There are no grounds for defense here. None. We can hope and pray that he is granted repentance, but that's about it.

"There are no grounds for defense here."

There are no "grounds for defense" for real, ethnic, Norwegian people in real(not virtual!) life either.

"after mailing bombs to people one ought not expect them to listen to one's good points anymore. A good rule of thumb is that real, actual people should not be sacrificed for the nebulous greater good."

And after Norwegian women are and were getting raped by real, actual Muslims gangs for a nebulous liberal greater good called 'diversity', you should not expect the people of that country to listen to the more basic 'greater good' arguments against killing your political opponents at any age, particularly when abortion is the sacrament of the day.

You are taking the existence of a fair and impartial temporal legal system for granted. For ethnic Norwegians, justice does not exist. And I'm not talking about 'revenge' either, I'm talking about the common penalties for common definitions of common crimes. There is one harsh penalty for natives and one extremely lenient penalty for invaders.

I will not impose my Christian judgment, based on my Christian standard, on a society that has abandoned all pretense of hewing to that standard. Paul demands we morally judge those who claim to be INSIDE the church, not outside. Liberalism and the jihad in Norway have eaten their opposition, who are now blindly fighting in the belly of the beast. What comes of such dark combinations I will judge only by their words and their deeds.

Epoetker, the Norwegian government is not actively killing off Norwegians. We agree that the diversity regime is stupid and foolish, but all it would take to end it is for real, actual Norwegians to stop participating in it and to stop assenting to it with their votes or inaction. As it is, the government of Norway is made up almost entirely of Norwegians, not occupying Muslims, so while I can understand the frustration of a Breivik he has no cause to launch a futile one man crusade.

Okay, Epoetker, whoever you are, bag it. Last warning. These comments are definitely skirting if not over the line of justifying this heinous murderer. And don't come in here saying, "I'm not justifying what he did, all I'm saying is blah, blah," and repeating what you just said. The comment will be deleted if you do so.

all it would take to end it is for real, actual Norwegians to stop participating in it and to stop assenting to it with their votes or inaction

Leftists and liberals of all sorts are able to maintain the status quo because they are more aggressive, especially in personal ways, than the average barely political citizen. Their main tactic in this country is to ruthlessly attack an opponent with a string biting ad hominems that leave them thinking they're evil for holding those views. This is the only effective, civilized solution to them.

If you think it's ineffective or wrong, that's just because you've never successfully taken down a liberal by using it on them. It's especially useful when defending conservative views in front of an audience.

"These comments are definitely skirting if not over the line of justifying this heinous murderer."

I will never justify a MASS MURDER. But in the end, if everything the murderer does matches everything the murderer says, I see no reason but to take him at his word:

"We were honest once, but Marx and Muhammad has forced us to become more like them, unfortunately."

Is it "justification of murder" to claim that this murder was done completely in the spirit of Marx and Mohammed, the enemies of civilization that masthead your site? Is a dispassionate appraisal of enemy-held territory and its attendant risks evidence that I've been corrupted by the world? Does my continuing salvation hinge on showing good manners to those who would take them as a sign of weakness and a go-ahead to violently crack down on the remnants of good they have left?

And were you a Norwegian mother, would you rather raise a son whose deeply-held sense of right and wrong was corrupted into a mass-murder episode, or a son whose sense of right and wrong was so entirely nonexistent that he could blandly watch a live rape or murder on camera and not find a way to respond in over an hour?

What does Chesterton say at the end of his book that's your site's namesake?
"I begin with a little girl's hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict's; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed. "

What a crazy question: Would one rather raise a mass murderer than someone who wouldn't find a way to stop a rape? Golly.

First rule of holes: Stop digging.