Daily Archives: April 29, 2012

Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik

Robert Henderson

The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik  in Oslo is truly remarkable. It is not Breivik who is fearful , but the Norwegian political mainstream trembling  their way towards what they hope will be a  politically correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:

“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison, despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to be criminally responsible.

But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in the trial.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html)

Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be so politically incorrect.

Liberals are desperately  struggling  to fit  the man into their fantasy world  where everyone is wondrously  multicultural and gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass immigration or the denial of human nature  and difference which is the essence of political correctness.  This entails  a blind refusal to engage with Breivik’s  declared motives and general criticism of modern  Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world generally) . In a nutshell, they  do not know how to rationally respond to a  man who challenges everything they believe in and can only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who can be viewed  in the same way that the audience for  a nineteenth century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.

The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public  singing during the trial  of a  song which Breivik claims is part of the indoctrination of Norwegians. The song , Children of the Rainbow,  contains lyrics such as these:

“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see

An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?

Together shall we live, every sister, brother

Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”

(http://www.policymic.com/articles/7556/norway-fights-against-mass-killer-breivik-by-singing-children-of-the-rainbow/related.

In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian children to sing that and the  Hitler Youth leading renditions of  the Horst Wessel song ?

Three  tactics have been used to negate the danger   Breivik represents: say he is insane,  seek to censor  his testimony  on the ground that he  will use the trial to promote his political ideas or  attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person.   This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere.  Consequently, even outside of Norway  there   is precious little attempt to present  reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead  liberals generally have  offered  feeble personal abuse of his person,  bald assertions that his arguments  are  wrong and delusional and claims that he must be mad.

Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has raised? Because they  know in their heart of hearts that their declared  political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite decades of politically correct propaganda  and the punishment of those who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal sanction’s such as  loss of employment,  humans  still feel what they have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and territoriality.    Liberals know this in the most certain way because they , like everyone else,  have the  feelings which lead human beings to naturally think in terms of membership of a group and to favour those like themselves. This commonly makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching,  a trait most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant settlement.

It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy of avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their  ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in England)  a very white and very English world . (The favourite  white liberal excuse for  denying themselves the  experience of the joy of diversity  is that it is a matter of  class  which causes them to  end up well away from the diversity. This , the white liberal claims, is   because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity.  It is an argument which does not seem to  provide an adequate garment to  cover the hypocrisy of the  likes of the leftist folk singer Billy Bragg  who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became invaded by  ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the whitest and most English of counties).

When people support an ideology  which they know is false  or at the least not objectively demonstrable,  they invent excuses for reality not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a consequence of social conditioning.  They then follow the logic  of that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals) harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts to  re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail,  as they always do,  the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the required alterations in human behaviour.  This provides an excuse to continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian restrictions on how people may behave.  The liberal’s  chosen vehicle for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political correctness or, to  the politically and academically inclined, cultural Marxism.

But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are supposed to be according to the politically correct canon,  liberals, even the most committed believers,  also have a terrible fear that if people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a revolution which might, at best, overthrow what they fervently want or, more venally ,  could result in  dire consequences from  themselves as the rage of those who have suffered  from the enforcement of political correctness and mass immigration is let off the leash.  At the very least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of political correctness would vanish.  This would remove the livelihoods of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political correctness and even more  from those  who pay lip-service to political correctness  simply to obtain one of the politically correct sinecures.  There is a very large vested interest in maintaining political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with power.

If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become  the elite ideology of most of  the Western world.  That makes it toxic and potentially dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism.  It is  catastrophically pernicious because it is totalitarian in its nature  for  it reaches into every aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any situation is the politically correct one.

The ills of mass immigration and  the enforcement of multiculturalism require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those  who either cannot  fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or  will not assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral culture ,must of itself be immediately divisive  and, eventually, if immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the original population becoming a minority in their own land and their own culture, at the least,  badly mangled by that stark change in fortune.

The state  promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of  indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a homogeneous society, but   this may be an effect rather than a cause of the mass immigration.  Rather than being  the result of a conscious plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has happened, control  native dissent and attempt to deal with the inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy such as multiculturalism which pretends  that  there is no such thing as tribalism in the human DNA  and  everything is consequently  for the best in all possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it provides the elite with  a narrative for what has happened  which diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.

The ill effects of political correctness as it relates to issues other than those arising from race and ethnicity are less immediately obvious.  The ever growing censorship of what may be said or done  is obvious enough, but  there are other more subtle effects. Because its tenets run directly contrary to the way human beings naturally behave as individuals and in the mass , political correctness  will never gain general acceptance, but what it can do is inhibit the normal  social relationships  of a society by making it dangerous for individuals to behave naturally.  By definition, this must undermine the efficient functioning of any community because people are being asked to behave in a manner which is alien to their natural function. .

The idea that discrimination – the Great Satan of political correctness – is self-evidently and always wrong is a literal nonsense.  Humans like every other organism have to make choices. Choice  requires discrimination.   We discriminate in finding people sexually attractive; in liking them as people;  in choosing someone because we believe they are competent  to do something and in a myriad  other ways. People have to discriminate between people many times a day.  All of these things are matters,  like race, over which individuals have no control because the judgement is made by others not themselves.   Except for a few very advanced cases of political correctness, liberals make no complaint about such discrimination. The choice of race, gay rights and sexual equality as the great forbidden subjects of discrimination  is arbitrary, no more than an ideological whim.

When the state interferes in the necessary and natural use of discrimination, which includes the exercise of preference for those who most resemble ourselves ,  they  distort society.  Breivik’s prime complaint apart from the effects of multiculturalism generally  and  Islam in particular is that Norwegian society has become feminised.  There is  force in his argument. Norway has probably gone further than any other country in forcing through the use of law  and incessant propaganda women into areas where they were considerably  under-represented, most notably in politics (http://www.norway.org/aboutnorway/society/Equal-opportunities/gender/politics/)and business (http://www.20-first.com/406-0-a-personal-account-of-the-quota-legislation-in-norway.html).

Breivik believes that the changes in male roles and the straitjacket of feminism on Norway has emasculated Norwegian men. He has a point.  The films of the  Stieg Larsson Millennium trilogy (set in Sweden not Norway, but Sweden is a country which is part of the general Scandinavian appetite for feminism)  show us a very strange world in which men are all viewed as potential rapists unless they have been  emasculated by feminist propaganda, women revenge themselves on men with violence  and women  play the  authority roles in the same way that blacks do in Hollywood films (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/politically-incorrect-film-reviews-the-millenium-trilogy/).   Looking at the personnel  involved in the Breivik trial, it is eerily reminiscent of the world depicted in the Millennium films. The senior  judge and  one of the leading prosecutors  are women.  The men who appear ,  such as Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippstad ,  commonly have a strangulated  emasculated manner .  Interviews with many  of the Norwegian men speaking about the  Breivik killings also  display this quality.

Why does this matter?  There are fundamental,  and   to everyone other than liberals,  obvious  reasons  why men are normally masculine and women are feminine in their behaviour.  That is the way Nature has crafted their  respective general personalities and behaviours.  Male dominance is the norm amongst mammals and it would be extraordinary if it was not present  in human beings.  Even if it was possible to remove the trait through conditioning, it would beg the question of whether it would be wise to do so. At best it would be a reckless gamble.    Human beings need to feel that their lives have purpose. Take away the natural roles of men and women and most will at some point in their lives feel that their natural purpose has been subverted.

As for women,  the fact that they bear children of itself writes the general  script of both their lives and personalities.  There will always be women who do not want children or who fail to display a strong maternal instinct if they do have them, but the great  majority will naturally behave in a feminine manner.

The natural instincts of Norwegian men  and women have not been abolished, but men  entering the Norwegian elite will tend to be those who are less strongly masculine and this trait will continue for as long as political correctness is the dominant ideology.  Any human group selects new members from those who most resemble the group.  In the case of Norway there will be the strongest selection pressure for emasculated men to be selected for  the elite because so many women, most of whom will be  strongly feminist because that is the mentality which pushes them forward in modern Norwegian political life, will be within the group.  Any man who is  both naturally masculine and espouses masculine behaviour,  will be excluded.    Below the Norwegian political elite will be the men who retain their masculinity, but even they will be hamstrung by the cloying feminist dominance.

Exactly what sort of society will emerge in such circumstances is problematic, but it is worth noting that the  predominance of feminism in Norway creates a situation potentially more immediately  destabilising than that of  immigrants because  women, unlike immigrants, already form more than 50% of the population.   There is a majority with a vested interest in perpetuating and expanding   feminist privileges at the expense of men.

In the longer term a situation of great irony could arise in Norway, with the demands of feminism clashing with those of  other groups created by the politically correct,  especially Muslims, to crush feminist policies.

The management of the trial

While they are refusing to engage with Breivik’s complaints against what the Norwegian political elite have done – permitted mass immigration and unceasingly promoted multiculturalism in particular and  political correctness generally with their consequent profound changes to Norwegian society – liberals everywhere are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulation about how civilised  it all is, a positive model of  a modern liberal society which shows how morally superior is the politically correct view of the world.    Ralph Waldo Emmerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour/the faster we counted the spoons”  comes to mind, as well it should,  for when  the claim  of liberal rectitude and beatific  self-restraint is looked at in detail it rapidly  collapses.

From the time of the massacre the Norwegian authorities have carefully controlled  the narrative.  Until the trial began , apart from brief court appearances  Breivik was kept under wraps, most of the time in solitary.  His only conduit  to the outside world has been his defence lawyer Geir Lippstad , a man who radiates permanent  liberal angst and  puts in the shade British barristers representing those deemed to have “racist”  or  “far right” views  who routinely  trot out something along these lines:  “My client is utterly despicable but you must put that out of your minds and judge him on the evidence”.   At his first press conference after  agreeing to represent Breivik,  Lippstad   blithely stated that his client was mad (a claim he later withdrew).  Before the trial began Lippstad was wringing his hands again about the defence he was being asked to present and made it quite clear that it was both repugnant to him and nonsense.

The trial is  being  very carefully stage-managed .  Parts  are being broadcast, but the court has ruled that neither Breivik’s testimony  – both his statement and cross examination – or that of his witnesses can be broadcast. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17312079).   This allows the liberal dominated mainstream media and politics to give their version of what Breivik is and stands for.   They wish to show him at best as a contemptible  and negligible person who is not worth listening to and at worst a strange creature so far from the norm as to be beyond any consideration other than that of a monstrous curiosity.

As so often with modern liberals, personal abuse is freely offered against those who refuse to accept the politically correct view of the world, despite the fact that the politically correct   supposedly hold that a person’s appearance is utterly irrelevant and derogatory mention of it  a prime example of  the liberal’s Great Satan: discrimination.   Here is a good example from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph : “The voice gave little away, but the killer’s eyes, posture and physique spoke volumes. As the days wore on and he became unsettled by the prosecution’s questioning, white specks of dandruff flecked Breivik’s dark jacket, beads of sweat glistened on a face pockmarked by acne, and a motionless comb-over grew more slicked and gleaming.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9218529/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Six-days-in-the-company-of-a-mass-murderer.html)

As the public cannot watch Breivik in action, no one outside the court has a clue whether the reports of his behaviour, looks and words are a truthful representation of what is going on.  For all we know He  might be wiping the floor with the prosecutor and any other hostile questioner.  The same will apply when the witnesses  for the defence are called.

The management of the proceedings is further heightened by the broadcast of the evidence from witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, you get the other side of the story in full and directly (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html – 2.31 pm).  With Breivik’s  evidence there is not only the missing personal behaviour,  but the quotes which appear in the media are selective, concentrating not unnaturally on the more sensational of his words.

Amongst the self-congratulatory  liberal tosh about what a model of liberal restraint the trial is can be found the contention that Breivik would not have been given such licence to put his views in many other Western  jurisdictions including that of England.  I doubt whether that is true. Breivik is arguing that he acted in self-defence, the danger to himself (and the rest of  Norwegian society) being the policies of  allowing mass immigration,  the promotion of multiculturalism  and the strangulation of  any  public dissent through the rigorous application of  political correctness  which he feared would lead to the destruction of Norwegian culture  and that this would effectively leave any Norwegian at the mercy of  forces inimical to Norwegian  values and customs,  in his eyes most especially  Islam This  would at best  leave Norwegians as a subject people in their own  ancestral homeland or  at worst result in their complete obliteration as a people .

Those are of course political statements,  but that does not disqualify them as reasons why someone  should have a rational fear of what is happening and that the consequences of what is occurring   – mass immigration and multiculturalism –  could plausibly lead to a mortal threat to Norwegian society and by extension to Breivik.  The fact that they are so politically dangerous  for the political elite would make it difficult for any legal system anywhere to simple refuse  such a  justification of  a plea self-defence. This was the case  with Breivik because before he  was allowed to read his statement  there were strong hints that he would not be allowed to read it even if it was not televised. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9205393/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-barred-from-reading-new-manifesto-in-court.html).

There is also a question mark over whether Breivik is pleading self-defence in the sense that it would be understood in an English court:

“8.05am Before the court started, journalists were spoken to by the translators who said that “self-defence” was a misleading translation for the grounds for acquittal Breivik is invoking. A better translation would be “necessity”, they said as the clause he’s referring to is about defence of property and defence of others, not solely about defence of your own person.”

08.28am While we wait for a decision, more on the clarification from the translators regarding Breivik’s defence of “necessity” rather than “self-defence”. In Norway section 47 of the penal code states:

No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone’s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.”

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).

The charges brought against Breivik also potentially provide grounds for challenge.  Here are the salient parts of the indictment:

“THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OF OSLO

hereby indict Anders Behring Breivik, born 13.02.1979 currently remanded in custody before the Oslo District Court, pursuant to section 39 of the Penal Code, for sentence to be passed for his transfer to compulsory mental health care, cf. chapter 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, for having in a psychotic state committed an otherwise punishable act, namely in violation of:

Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letters a and b, cf. sections 148 first paragraph first penalty alternative and 233 first and second paragraphs

for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code, first paragraph, first penalty alternative (bringing about an explosion whereby loss of human life or extensive damage to the property of others could easily be caused) and of section 233 first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.

II Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letter b, cf. section 233 first and second paragraphs

 for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 223 of the Penal Code, first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously intimidating a population.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206336/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-indictment-in-full.html)

Consider the passage “with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.” Breivik was certainly not “seriously  intimidating a population”. Rather, he was seriously intimidating the ruling political elite by attacking the generation who were being trained to become the political elite.  As for  “seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority”, it is true the bomb attack was meant to harm members of the government including the Norwegian Prime Minister,  but  in a representative democracy even the death of a Prime Minister should not  “seriously disrupt a function of vital importance to society”.

Breivik’s mental state

The calls for Breivik to be considered mad  unambiguously show  the  authoritarian  nature of  the modern liberal mind.  Compare their  calls for him to be judged insane with the  treatment of others who have killed for political reasons such as   Islamic fanatics and IRA bombers. They were and are not treated by liberals  as deranged but as terrorists at worst, although plenty of liberals will always find ways of qualifying even that judgement because of the terrorist’s supposed motives and environment.  As Breivik observed  if he was a “bearded jihadist” no psychiatric investigation would have been asked for. (1.11 pm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)

Breivik is really in the same bracket as such people. Indeed, it could be argued that his motivation is  far more rational that, for example, the Jihadist who believes he will go to paradise with 72 virgins to use as he sees fit.  He has real fears about the future of his country and a clear idea of what he is doing, viz:

“10.28am Prosecutor Engh asked Breivik if he thought there were any parallels between what he had done and a war situation.

Breivik replied that it was “not a war but a political attack …. and I was trying to prevent a future civil war. Not just me but other political nationalists – we believe that this will happen” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)

Moreover,  ostensibly at least,  Breivik has not killed on a whim, as an exercise in sadism, to  revenge himself for  personal  slights or injuries or because he has a proven mental disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia with voices in his head telling him to kill people before they killed him.  He has no psychiatric history and , despite the best efforts of the first set of psychiatrists who examined him to diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic,  this judgement was contradicted by a second examination which found Breivik to be sane. The other strong pointer  to his sanity is the fact that he  successfully executed a meticulously planned and complex attack.

Breivik cooperated with the first psychiatrists who adjudicated on his sanity  but not the second.  Could it be that the first psychiatrists, faced with the physical reality of someone saying all the things they as, as politically correct believers, could not bear to think anyone who so contradicted their views was  sane? The second set of psychiatrists were not confronted with such a reality made flesh and  came to  their judgement simply on his known views and behaviour, a much less emotionally involving business.   Perhaps ominously for Breivik,  the Daily Telegraph reported on 23  April that at  “2.43pm The judge has read to the court comments from the Norwegian commission for forensic medicine, which has asked for “further work” to be done on the second psychiatric report into Breivik. This is the report which found he was sane.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)..

If this were an English court  it is difficult to see how Breivik  could  meet the test of insanity required by the McNaghten Rules. These  rest on whether a person accused of a crime knew they were doing something wrong or were suffering a defect of reason through mental illness,  most commonly paranoia, which drove them to commit the crime in the belief that it was necessary to commit it , most probably because of a belief that they or someone else was in danger. Clearly Breivik  is aware of what he was doing and how it would be viewed by society. That leaves only the question of whether he was acting under a delusion. That test would fall because manifestly what he fears, the objective threats to his society from mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness and Islam, are concrete facts. How far they could be judged to be mortal threats is another matter, but no one could reasonably argue that, in particular,  mass immigration and Islam are not real and substantial  threats to the nature of Norwegian society.

Compare the political positions of Breivik and the  politically correct:

Breivik points out the inevitable ill consequences of mass immigration; the particular threat from Islam and the enforcement of the totalitarian ideology political correctness.

The politically correct  ask human beings to  pretend that  that there is no difference between people of  varying races and cultures;  to willingly allow the invasion of their  territory  by strangers;   pretend that life is enriched by changing  from a homogenous to a fractured heterogeneous  society through mass immigration;  accept all sexual relationships as equally natural and socially useful and ignore the very obvious differences in interests and biological function between men and women in the name of sexual equality. The ideology requires people to behave as if they were not human.

Who is more divorced from reality?

Breivik’s ideas

How bright is Breivik? We are not talking Immanuel Kant here,  but neither is he a complete  clod.  His 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence   lists his concerns and programme for action as:

1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe

2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)

4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades

5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts

The  complete manifesto can be found at http://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf.

There are aspects of the ridiculous about his ideas,  most notably the guff about the foundation of a latterday  Knight’s Templars of which he describes himself as  “ Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement” and his truly embarrassing obsession with uniforms.   Breivik also shows  great obtuseness in thinking that a political manifesto of 1,518 pages  is a practical instrument to get his message across to a wide public, which was presumably his intent.  To the length of his writing can be added  the  barrier of  the quasi-academic style of  much of the content.  This prolixity and user-unfriendly style is unsurprising,  because he appears to be an autodidact  and an inability to understand an audience or edit out the marginal from the directly pertinent  often comes with that territory.  But that does not make what he has to say unimportant merely difficult  to access.

In his manifesto Breivik  is overly obsessed with Islam, although interestingly,  in his statement to the court  it is reported that: “09.32am The statement makes no reference to his crimes, his belief he is a Knight Templar, or, interestingly Islam. Instead, it’s a rant against left-wing multi-culturalism. “ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).

The threat to Norwegian society posed by Islam is not to be underestimated,  but it is  a subset of the larger general threat from immigration generally, especially in countries other than Norway.   It could be argued that if it was only Muslims which constituted a threat, then the danger might be both better appreciated and more easily dealt with,  because it is only the multiplicity of competing ethnicities which allows multiculturalism  –   a classic divide and rule strategy – to be peddled.   (The  same applies to the  entirety of political correctness, because that also  relies on creating sectional groups who can be similarly manipulated ).

Nonetheless,  it is true that Islam  represents  the most coherent, immediate  and obvious threat  from immigrants  in Europe  because of the numbers involved – estimates of Muslims in the EU are around 20 million – (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html)  and the nature of the  religion itself which provides plenty of unambiguous injunctions to use force against non-Muslims to enforce Islam  and  is generally  implacable in its drive towards domination.    In judging  Breivik’s fears they should be put in the context of the fact that Norway has a population of less than 5 million (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/).  Mass immigration is  a  vastly more pressing matter  for Norwegians than it is for a country with a  population of, say, 50 million or more.

How many  Muslims are there in Norway?  No one knows for sure because the Norwegian statistics office does not count people by religion.   Estimates by non-governmental bodies  give figures such as 144,000 in 2010 (http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/) and 163,000 in 2009 (Islam in Norway http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/IslamiNorge.html .) These figures would not seem unreasonable when placed against the Statistics Norway 2010 figure for first and second generation immigrants:

“Immigrants and those born in Norway to immigrant parents constitute 655 000 persons or 13.1 per cent of Norway’s population, among which 547 000 are immigrants and 108 000 are born in Norway to immigrant parents. 

Broken down by region, 294 000 have a European background, 163 000 persons have a background from Asia, 60 000 from Africa, 18 000 from South- and Central-America and 11 000 from North America and Oceania.

 57 100 of those born in Norway to immigrants parents have an Asian background, 29 000 have parents from Europe, 19 500 from Africa and 2 600 have immigrant parents from South- and Central America.  “ http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/

It would be a fair bet that the large majority of the Asians are Muslims.

Despite these substantial shortcomings, Breivik’s message is  most powerful and (for liberals) a tremendously  dangerous.   He  strikes directly at  the social  poison which lies at the heart of not only  Norway but  much of the First World: the pernicious consequences of mass immigration and the ideological justification for it – multiculturalism – which Western elites have developed to justify both the immigration and the authoritarian measures employed to prevent  public dissent  at its permitting.  In addition, by condemning political correctness generally he strikes at the other sacred cows of  political correctness ,  gay rights and feminism.   If Breivik is widely  judged to be right in his core  views  (not his actions)  the immense edifice of  political correctness  erected in in Norway  (and elsewhere)   over the past half century is under threat.

The eternal crime of treason

Most deadly for the liberal elite is Breivik’s  attack on mass immigration.  He  is accusing the Norwegian elite of  collective and sustained  act of  treason  which he believes  will obliterate  Norway as a recognisable nation

The idea of treason is so  potent  because it is one of very few crimes which exists in people’s minds  regardless of whether a law enshrining it is on the statute book.  Indeed, it could be argued that it is the only crime which commands such universality of natural recognition because even crimes such as murder and theft are open to considerable differences of definition for example, killing by vendetta has been morally sanctioned in many societies and theft by conquest lauded.  But treason  is always treason, the betrayal of the tribe, clan or nation.  It is even more fundamental than that,  because its roots  rest in the anger and dismay felt by any human being if they are let down by another whom they trusted.

A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a country  and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice (and increasingly in theory) , and the  coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under  threat – see  http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/what-is-treason-today/)

Liberals have been conditioned to eschew a sense of nation. Breivik has not. Here he is explaining why he wept at his trial when watching one of his videos :

“Because my country is in the process of dying – it was the sorrow over seeing my country … deconstructed. Especially the songs, combined with the message” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9210659/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-three-live.html).

There will be few in the West who will  espouse Breivik’s actions but many who will in varying degrees sympathise at some level with  his complaints about mass immigration, the demands of Muslims within Western societies and  the strangling of human nature by political correctness. A good parallel  for British readers is the relationship between Irish nationalists and the actions of the IRA.  Support for the IRA varied from outright glorification of terrorist acts to those who adopted what might the called the “I don’t agree with their methods but… ” approach whereby they supported the ends but not the means.

What  liberals everywhere should be doing is questioning why the imposition of their  political ideology  could drive someone to do what Breivik did. Such massacres are rare to  the point of almost  non-existence in modern Western  society.   The only real parallel is the bombing  of government offices carried out  by  Timothy McVeigh in the USA (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-oslo-massacre-and-the-treason-of-the-liberals/) .

In both cases the perpetrators – Breivik and McVeigh  – were men who lived in societies which provided for their material needs.  They were not driven to do what they did by poverty. They were not fighting against an occupying power or an overt dictatorship.  Both men could  have continued to live what, by the standard of most places in the world , were extremely comfortable lives. Yet both chose to leave that security and engage in acts which by any standard were wholly exceptional  and deeply disturbing.   Moreover, the acts  are disturbing not just for the slaughter  which occurred, but also for their  causes.

Norwegians who buy into the multicultural, politically correct propaganda which has been  pumped out  for decades ought to be examining the type of world their rigid adherence to political correctness has created.   It has produced  the sense of  social claustrophobia common to overt  totalitarian states  whereby people find the range of opinion they are permitted shrinks and shrinks and instead of behaving naturally they are constantly thinking is it safe to say this? It is a mental gaol.   Breivik described  the symptoms graphically:

“09.46am I’m not scared of the prospect of being imprisoned. I was born in a prison and I have spent my life in a prison… this prison is called Norway. It doesn’t matter if I am locked into a cell, because you know that all areas will end up in a multicultural Hell that we call Oslo.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).

Above all liberals need to ask themselves why, if Breivik’s ideas are so absurd, so outlandish they are afraid of them. The poet John Milton had the answer to those who wished to censor:

‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton - Areogapitica].

If Breivik is as irrational and delusional as liberals wish to make out,  and liberals believe sincerely in what they say,  they would surely let their perceived truth go into battle with Breivik’s perceived truth. The reality is that liberals at best do not think that their ideas are practical or palatable to the majority  at present  and at worst they have ceased to believe in political correctness but cannot say so for fear of the consequences to themselves.

A sociologist and professor at Oslo university, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, has been called to give evidence for Breivik.  He has yet to give evidence but in the,  to English eyes,  rather curious world of Norwegian criminal justice, he has spoken to the media about his coming evidence (there appears to be little if any concept of sub judice in Norway) :

“I expect that they want me to help them substantiate the claim that he was not insane, what I can say is that his world view, or large parts of his world view are fairly widely shared… And this world view exists, not shared by a majority but by a fairly vocal and potentially dangerous minority,” Eriksen said. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9211988/Anders-Breivik-unable-to-distinguish-reality-says-professor.html).

There you have a liberal coming as close as they are likely to get to an admission of what they all fear:  that Breivik’s views (although not his actions) are shared by large numbers of people, especially his views on immigration and Islam.   Prof Eriksen  is wrong in one respect:  it is not a “dangerous minority” but humans generally who have these feelings, including, as mentioned previously,  liberals.  People may have been brainwashed  but that does not means normal human instincts have vanished or  that people generally  believe in the propaganda. Instead people  develop a fear response  which drives them to shun views which clash with the ideology and to give evidence of their belief in the ideology in public situations by paying lip service to it.

While an ideology can be enforced,  the public will display behaviours ranging from a servile adherence to the ideology to promote their interests  to lip service just to remain safe.   But once the means of enforcing the ideology are removed these behaviours will rapidly vanish.  The societies liberals have built in the West are houses of cards just waiting to be knocked over if the stranglehold of the politically correct can be broken.

I will end with a question, What is the non-violent means to break the hold on power of elites  who would destroy the societies they come from through mass immigration, obsessively enforce  political correctness  and  ruthlessly suppress  dissent to what they are doing  through the criminalisation of  ideas which run counter to those  of the politically correct?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 200 other followers

%d bloggers like this: