Anders Breivik has been declared insane at the time of his mass killings on 22 July 2011 by Norwegian psychiatrists, Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby. They claim Breivik was psychotic before and during his bomb attack in Oslo and shooting attack on Utoya Island which together left 76 dead. Prosecutor Svein Holden said Beivik has been diagnosed as insane and that “He lives in his own delusional universe and his thoughts and acts are governed by this universe”. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8922760/Anders-Behring-Breivik-not-accountable-for-attacks.html). If this diagnosis is upheld , first by a Norwegian legal medical commission and then by the Norwegian courts, Breivik will be incarcerated in an asylum, most probably for the rest of his life.
The question of whether Breivik will have a chance to speak at length in open court is still open, viz.: “The trial will proceed in much the same manner as if Breivik had been found sound of mind. Evidence will still be examined, and the court has the final say as to whether or not they believe Breivik is guilty of having carried out the attacks.”( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15954370). However, if the question of insanity is the primary issue for the court to decide, that could mean that Breivik is not allowed to testify either at all or as freely as he would wish. They could well decide that he was guilty of the crimes without any testimony from Breivik (the facts are scarcely at issue and Breivik admitted his responsibility soon after the event (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14265526) and then decide on the question of insanity based only on the “expert” evidence. It is also possible that any court hearing could be held in camera. (It is only too easy to imagine politically correct Norway claiming that as the man was judged to be mentally disturbed, he should not be subjected to public scrutiny). Unless Breivik has a trial in open court he will disappear from public view without any opportunity to speak his mind in public.
The matter is further complicated by the question of how Breivik will plead. If he rejects a plea of insanity and wishes to plead not guilty, he will have the obstacle to overcome of having admitted the fact that he did undertake the bombings and shootings. If he pleads not guilty that could result in the court excluding any testimony from Breivik relating to motive and deciding the matter purely on his admission to the facts and the question of whether he is or was insane at the time of the killings. If the Breivik is to plead justification for committing the killings he would need to do so in a way which it would be difficult for the court to refuse him the opportunity to speak at length. I think the most probable way he could do this is by arguing that he was acting in self-defence because he believed that the policies of his ruling elite were putting his society and by extension himself at risk. The weakness in his argument would be that he has not attacked those with the actual power and influence but the youth wing of the party with power..
Breivik’s alternative would be to plead guilty and then use whatever chance the court offers him to speak in mitigation to put forward his justification. However, if he does that it would be both easier for the court to restrict what he might say and hold the proceedings in camera.
It will be interesting to see if Breivik is allowed to bring the witnesses he wants or, indeed, any witnesses at all, to court. These could be to support his claim of sanity or his belief that Norway (and the rest of the European world) is being betrayed by its elites through their permitting of mass immigration and suppression of dissent about the effects of the immigration. Those relevant to supporting his political position could be distinctly embarrassing as Breivik could try to call those politicians he blames for Norway and Europe’s betrayal. Such applications would almost certainly be refused, but Norwegian officialdom’s refusal of them would add to the impression of an elite determined to not hear Breivik’s case.
A taste of the way the things are likely to go in any trial can be gleaned from this report of Breivik’s court appearance of 15 November 2011: ‘He [Breivik] then questioned the competence of Judge Torkjel Nesheim “because (the judge) has a mandate from organizations that support multi-culturalism in Norway. Multi-culturalism is an anti-Norwegian hate ideology designed to destruct the Norwegian ethnic group.” He got as far as adding that “destructing the Norwegian ethnic group is the same as ethnic cleansing…” before the judge cut him off, saying the court only wanted to hear from Breivik about his impressions of prison life.
‘Breivik later said he had no problems with the conditions of his custody, but said he “doesn’t accept” his imprisonment because he’s a “military commander.” He recommended Norwegian police look to Saudi Arabia for other “methods of torture.” The judge cut him off several times, refusing to allow Breivik to use the hearing as a “soapbox” to spread his beliefs. As reported earlier, his request to directly address survivors and victims’ families was denied.’ (http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/11/15/breiviks-altered-sense-of-reality/). This refusal to allow Breivik to explain himself goes along with the keeping him in solitary confinement and denying him any knowledge of what was happening in the outside world.
Is Breivik mad?
The psychiatric assessment is that “He lives in his own delusional universe and his thoughts and acts are governed by this universe”. The problem with this judgement is that while Breivik’s political views can be rejected on the grounds that they are unpalatable, they are not based on fantasy. There has been massive immigration into Western societies. Vast numbers of Muslims have come to Europe. Post-war non-white immigration has both radically altered the societies into which they have come and resulted in European elites who suppress dissent and ceaselessly promote multiculturalism. If immigration continues at a similar rate it will be a fact that over the next half century societies, especially ones with small populations like Norway, are in danger of seeing their native populations become minorities in their own lands. To be insane, at least in the English legal sense (McNaughton Rules), Breivik would have to have been captured by delusions which rendered him unable to understand reality, for example, a hearing voices in his head directing him to kill people or suffering from a paranoid belief that someone was trying to kill him. Clearly this is not the case with Breivik’s political ideas. Those are based in reality and long considered.
There is also the evidence of the meticulous planning Breivik undertook and his extensive writings which show someone fully aware of what he wanted to do and, most importantly for an insanity plea , why he wanted to do it. Breivik clearly understood that what he was doing would have been immoral as uncontexted acts, but these were given (he believed) a moral context because of the political and social circumstances created by the liberal elites.
Nor could Breivik’s killing spree be reasonably used to decide that he is insane. There are innumerable terrorists who have killed with the same callous disregard but they have not been adjudged insane or, indeed, has there been any official attempt to suggest that they were insane. Evil, bad, immoral maybe, but not mad.
Compare Breivik’s s assessment of the world with the modern liberals’ belief system. His is a recognition of what mass immigration and political correctness has actually wrought: theirs is a fantasy world in which humanity is one big happy family with its human atoms readily interchangeable between place, culture and time regardless of race or sex.
An elite stitch up?
The diagnosis of insanity comes as no surprise. Shortly after Breivik’s arrest his lawyer Geir Lippestad conducted a press conference (on 26th July) in which client confidentiality was non-existent and Lippestad’s adverse opinions of his client were given full reign in a way which is astonishing to British eyes. Apart from telling the world that Breivik was a “a cold personality” ; assuring them that Breivik hates “anyone who democratic” and that he thinks Breivik’s ideology as outlined in his manifesto is irrelevant to the case (which is a pointer to how his defence may be conducted), Lippestad made the astonishing comment “This whole case has indicated that he’s insane “ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14292212). I listened to press conference as it was taking place and I noted Lippstad as saying he was discussing an insanity plea with the prosecutor, although he has not seen fit to tell his client that he is doing any of this. (I have not been able to track down a full version of the press conference and the excerpts which are publicly available do not contain these statements. Nor can I find it reported anywhere in print. The longest extract I have found online is around 14 minutes long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtXIGw0BvbM&feature=related). A diagnosis of insanity would appear to have been the tacitly or overtly agreed Norwegian elite solution to the acute problem Breivik represents for not only them but for elites everywhere in countries whose governments have signed up to the globalist multiculturalist creed. As for Breivik’s chances of controlling his defence, Lippestad stated baldly The “I won’t take no instructions [from Breivik]” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtXIGw0BvbM&feature=related – enter at 2 minutes 14 seconds). On the face of it Breivik has a lawyer who will be unwilling to present a defence as Breivik wishes it to be presented.
How does Breivik view the situation? He is reported as describing the insanity diagnosis as insulting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15954370). However, he might not be too perturbed in reality because such a ploy by the Norwegian judicial system would bolster his claims of a corrupt and treasonous political elite who will stop at nothing to enforce their will and ideology.
Breivik’s choice of lawyer Geir Lippestad is interesting. Lippestad is a member of the Norwegian Labour Party. He specifically asked for Lippestad to represent him. Bearing in mind Beivik’s penchant for planning and research, it is improbable that he did not know Lappestad was a member of the party he despised. Why did he choose Lappestad? Probably to ensure that his trial was seen as seriously flawed, to demonstrate publicly through the manner of Lippestad’s defence how biased and controlling the Norwegian elite has become. The choice of Lippestad also has the advantage of placing a member of the Norwegian liberal establishment in the excruciatingly embarrassing situation of defending the man who has waged war on the young of Lippestad’s own political party. (I have had the sneaking feeling ever since the killings that Breivik is working the Norwegian liberal elite with his foot).
It has been suggested that Lippestad was chosen because he defended the white killer of a mixed race victim in 2002 and Breivik asked for him because he thought Lippestad would be the best defence lawyer because of the way that Lippestad conducted the 2002 case. This is very implausible because Breivik could have had no illusions about being found either not guilty or insane. The best Breivik could hope for was a trial in open court with his ideas put before the public. The quality of the defence lawyer is irrelevant in such circumstances (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8663525/Norway-killers-lawyer-Geir-Lippestad-defended-neo-Nazi.html
Doubtless a public trial in which he has his chance to speak at length would have been Breivik’s preferred outcome, but the sinister act of having him declared mad – a tactic all too familiar from regimes such as those of the Soviet Union and Communist China – could fit into his general purpose of demonstrating the mentality he accuses Western elites of possessing. A flawed trial caused by the wilful inadequacies of his lawyer would reinforce the point that the Norwegian elite are determined not to allow any view but their own politically correct one to have a public hearing.
Can Breivik get a fair trial?
Beivik has been kept in solitary confinement and denied any knowledge of what is happening in the outside world. When he has appeared in court it has been mostly in camera. What we know of Breivik’s attempts to speak at his court appearances show a judiciary determined to disallow any attempt to explain his motives. Breivik’s lawyer has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of doing what Breivik wants. To cap it all, psychiatrists find Breivik insane.
The solitary confinement might just about be explained by fears that other prisoners would attack Breivik, although he could have been placed with prisoners without a history of violence. For the rest it is simply an attempt to
denial of knowledge of the outside world there is no security excuse and it can only have been done for the petty reason of denying Breivik any chance of deriving satisfaction from seeing what effect he has had. However, it has the unintended consequence of making it impossible for him to properly instruct his lawyer or assess the advice given by his lawyer, things which would seriously mitigate against a fair trial. It also means that Breivik cannot use the response of politicians and the media to the attacks in any justification based on his political position.
The liberal’s fear of Breivik
Why are liberals so very terrified of Breivik that they cannot bear the idea of him being thought sane or willingly countenance his justifications for the attacks being presented to the public ? After all, this is a mass murderer who presents his ideas in a distinctly eccentric form by wrapping his idea for a revolution against the ruling elites in the highly anachronistic clothes of the mediaeval military order of the Knights Templars, a group to which he considers himself and fellow spirits to be the heirs to. Here is a sample of his curious mixture of ancient and modern:
“3.12 Re-founding of Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici – PCCTS, the Knights Templar The European Military Order and Criminal Tribunal (the PCCTS – Knights Templar) was created by and for the free indigenous peoples of Europe. One of the primary purposes of the tribunal and order is to attempt/contribute to seize political and military control of Western European multiculturalist regimes and to try, judge and punish Western European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist perpetrators (category A, B and C traitors) for crimes committed against the indigenous peoples of Europe from 1955 until this day.
“Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici – PCCTS (the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), the Knights Templar was re-founded in London in 2002 by representatives from eight European countries, for the purpose of serving the interests of the free indigenous peoples of Europe and to fight against the ongoing European Jihad (referred to as the “third Jihad”). The Knights Templar was re-founded as a pan-European nationalist military order and a military/criminal tribunal with two primary objectives. The order is to serve as an armed Indigenous Rights Organisation and as a Crusader Movement (anti-Jihad movement). “ 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence
The original Breivik link to the manifesto – http://andersbreivik.co.uk/2083/ – has been nullified, but the full document can be found at (http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf).
Nonetheless, in between all the romantic eccentricity are ideas which strike deep into the heart of the liberal fantasy: that Islam is compatible with Western society, that mass immigration is treason and that feminism enfeebles a society by feminising men. Breivik is a challenge to the entire politically correct edifice on which the liberal rests. Worse, the liberal, like all ideologues, knows in their heart of hearts that their ideology cannot withstand contrary argument because ideologies are always incomplete description of the world and consequently erroneous guides to action.
In the case of liberal internationalism the ideology is especially vulnerable. The liberal knows that the society they wish to see conflicts with the way in which human beings actually behave in the most fundamental way. That does not discourage the liberal because they do not believe in human nature and ascribe all behaviours to social conditioning. Consequently, any behaviour of which they disapprove can be changed by altering the conditioning. Any failure of the re-conditioning is ascribed to it being applied over insufficient time or of the re-conditioning not being rigorous enough. There is never a natural point for the 24 carat liberal believer to say this will not work.
But although the liberal is certain that success will be eventually attained, they know that during the re-conditioning period the old social habits will remain and can still be powerfully appealed to. That drives the liberal to believe that suppression of any dissent directed at the imposition of the new “liberal” behaviours is morally justified on the grounds that the ends justify the means. The problem is the liberal’s view of how human beings work is wondrously wide of the mark and the re-conditioning will never succeed because it goes against basic human desires. The best the liberal can hope for is to suppress dissent to give the appearance of a step change in human behaviour. Breivik is a frightening challenge to that strategy of suppression.
No matter what the evidence to the contrary is, the true believers will continue to believe because to do otherwise would be emotionally impossible for them. They believe still that it is simply a question of time and “education”, a word which is unreservedly sinister in the mouth of the modern liberal. But many , probably most, ostensible liberals understand that there is such a thing as human nature and know that what they are asking of people is unnatural and will never be accepted. The problem for such people is that they are trapped into a situation where they have to keep pretending the ideology is correct for reasons of self-preservation. At best they risk the loss of their privileged position if the liberal censorship is broken ; at worse, they could be held to account for the treason which is mass immigration. Those fears drive them to support the unreconstructed true believers when they behave ever more tyrannically in their suppression of dissent, which in Breivik’s case means doing their best to censor his words and pretend that he is simply an unbalanced aberration which has nothing to do with their ideology.
Perhaps the most telling moments during Geir Lippestad press conference of 26th July were when he answered the question “Why did he [Breivik] think it was a good idea to start a war by attacking members of the Labour Party rather than Islamics?” With “I cannot understand that” followed by repetitions along the same lines. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnbOtoJHUZI – go into the recording at 33 seconds). This was unbelievable because Breivik had a clear and obvious motive, namely, Breivik was attacking the next generation of the class whom he had identified as being responsible for the political and social problems which had driven him to act. In his mind Breivik was culling those he saw as the future traitors and sending messages to both the Norwegian elite and general public that the permitting of mass immigration = treason. Yet Lippestad could not bring himself to either acknowledge what was obvious or even offer an alternative explanation. Interestingly, it was during this answer that Lippestad appeared to be at his most stressed during the press conference.
The right-wing broadcaster Glen Beck likened the youth wing whose members Breivik shot to the Hitler Youth: “”There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics. Disturbing,” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/26/glenn-beck-norwegian-dead-hitler) . It would be more accurate to liken the Norwegian Labour Party’s youth wing the Workers’ Youth League (Arbeidernes ungdomsfylking, AUF) to the Soviet youth organisation Komsomol . The AUF is affiliated with the International Union of Socialist Youth and Young European Socialists and the Nordic Labour Youth Movement (FNSU). Many members of the AUF have gone on to high positions in the party. Indeed, the present Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, was once a member. It is in that context that Breivik’s decision to attack the AUF members should be seen. I would agree with Beck that “a camp for kids that’s all about politics” is disturbing under any circumstances; in the context of Norwegian politics it is verging on the sinister because of the dominance of the Norwegian Labour Party over a very long period of time.
A de facto one-party state
How ideologically one-dimensional Norwegian society has become can be seen from the position of the Norwegian Labour Party (NLP). Between 1945 and 1961 it held an absolute majority in the Norwegian parliament. Since 1935 there have only been 16 years when the Norwegian Prime Minister has not been drawn from the Party. It is presently the dominant party in the Red-Green Coalition which governs Norway. (The coalition is formed of the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party).
The history of the NLP over the past thirty years mirrors that of the British Labour Party. It began the period as a social democratic party, then shifted to supporting economic liberalisation and a programme of privatisation. At the same time it became every more ideologically committed to what is now called political correctness.
Interestingly, In 2011, the Norwegian Labour Party (Det norske arbeiderparti) dropped the Norwegian and became simply the Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet). This was ostensibly on the ground that the electorate was confused by the term Norwegian Labour Party because it was known commonly as the Labour Party. I suspect that the explanation will strike most people as simply absurd as the Norwegians had been returning the Party to the Norwegian parliament in droves for over seventy years.
A more likely explanation is that the “Norwegian” part of the title sat uneasily in a party which was firmly committed to internationalism in general and to Norway’s eventual membership of the EU in particular. The EU dimension is more important than it might seem. It is true that the Norwegian electorate thwarted the Norwegian political elite’s wish for Norway to sign up as a full member of the EU, but the lesser relationship which Norway agreed to – its membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) – still allows the EU to exercise profound influence over Norway (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/if-we-leave-the-eu-we-mustnt-be-another-norway/ ).
EEA membership requires that subscribing states have to accept the “four freedoms” of the EU: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries as well as those comprising the EU. This the prime reason for not joining the EEA or having a bilateral relationship with the EU similar to that of Switzerland. These “four freedoms” mean amongst other things that EEA members cannot meaningfully control immigration, protect their economy, prevent foreign takeovers or freely engage in any new taxpayer funded subsidy for which is judged to interfere with the market (article 61).
These restrictions on Norway’s sovereignty mean that the Norwegian political elite can obtain much of their internationalist politically correct ends . Most importantly for the Breivik case, the four freedoms mean that Norway cannot prevent immigration from the EU. This has allowed the immigration which has disturbed so many Norwegians. Before the “four freedoms” Norway could control its immigration: now it cannot. Take away the immigration and Breivik may well have never even contemplated doing what he did.
What drove Breivik from ideas to action?
In Right Now! magazine in July 1995 (issue 8 The Treason of the Liberals (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-oslo-massacre-and-the-treason-of-the-liberals/ ) I examined the reasons which led Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. I attributed the cause to the creation by white liberal elites of circumstances which utterly alienated the white masses in whose interests they supposedly exercised power. The permitting of the mass immigration of those who by their nature could not or would not assimilate into white European societies and their overseas offshoots such as the USA by itself undermined the national cohesion.
If that was not damaging enough, the liberal elites used the upheaval wrought by mass immigration as a launch pad for what has become a rigid ideological creed by the name of political correctness. In the name of “anti-discrimination” all the old certainties were overturned: the dominance of the white population in white societies; the traditional place of the man; the distrust of homosexual behaviour all went by the board. The white male who was outside the liberal elite was left high and dry, constantly hemmed in with criticism and accusations about what was permissible.
To enforce the new politically correctly regime the state became ever more intrusive and the white person, and especially the white male, found themselves ever more marginalised. Whites became actively disadvantaged in ever sphere as far as it was in the power of governments to arrange this. Minority groups were given preference in employment (especially state employment) and higher education; political parties and corporate bodies rushed to ensure they could present a “diverse” face to the public and. To speak against this courted loss of employment or even jail.
At the same time Governments throughout the First World wrapped themselves ever more tightly in international treaties such as those of the UN, the WTO and the EU. More and more was taken out of the hands of national governments. More and more liberal elites insisted they could not do anything other than the politically correct because it would breach a treaty or be illegal. Democratic control was sucked from national politics. Anyone who disagreed with what was being done under the liberal internationalist banner had no democratic path to follow.
The dimension of violence
Many in the West like to imagine that their societies are beyond not only the crude politics of violence, but of socially approved violence generally. This is a myth. Western societies value many purveyors of violence; the police, state security organisations, armed forces and private security guards. The rich and powerful have no doubt about the value of personal bodyguards, celebrities routinely use “minders”, clubs use bouncers and everyone but everyone is only too glad to see another use violence to defend them should the need arise.
Liberals will of course recoil at the idea that they are comfortable with violence, but they are as willing as anyone to embrace those with a talent for violence. Look at the war-mongering propensities of Blair and Cameron which have ensured Britain has been at war since the late 1990s. Even if they do not war-monger they keep their mouths shut when it suits them. Take the state massacre at Waco (http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html). That happened under Bill Clinton’s presidency. Were the government agents responsible brought to justice? They were not. Did liberals generally rail against that monstrous act which resulted in women and children being burnt to death? They did not. Somehow the people at Waco were not quite the right sort of victim for liberals to care deeply about.
But it is not just violence which might seem legitimate in as much as the state overtly sanctions it for reasons which are ostensibly at least for the defence of the individual and society at large, whether that be the maintenance of law and order, the defence of national territory or the etiolated national interest claims which cover the aggressive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya that is accepted as legitimate. Anyone who enjoys watching a sport which involves violence and danger is not merely saying this is violence which is regrettably necessary, they are actively enjoying the violence. If you wish to see the excitement at its most explicit and primal go to a an evening of professional boxing. The men will be excited, but it is the women you want to watch. They will be in a state of what can only be described as sexual arousal.
Then there is the very considerable appetite for violence in films, plays and pornography. War, gangster and violent super-hero films are perennially popular. There is a current fad for “torture porn” offerings such as the “Saw” series. Sadomasochistic websites are legion – I put “sadomasochism” into Google and it came up with 2,490,000 results. People routinely stop to gawp at road accidents. Going back into history the popularity of the Roman games and the large crowds public executions point to the fact that the interest in violence is deeply imbedded in human nature. It needs an outlet. A society which too rigorously controls such desires may cause people to satisfy their inclinations in much more harmful ways than one which takes a relaxed attitude and offers relatively harmless outlets for the desires.
Why does violence hold such a fascination for humans? It is dramatic. It causes the adrenalin to flow. Fictional depictions of it at least offer an innocent escape from a world which is generally not only violence free but physically risk free. Perhaps most pertinently for the Breivik killings, depictions of violence in fictional form may have a special attraction for men living in a society which is tightly controlled not only in matters of violence but generally. Films such as the Godfather trilogy show a world in which people are not constrained by the rules of society, a world in which men respond to even petty irritations with unbridled and disproportionate force. That has an obvious attraction for men living in societies which are subjected to the petty tyrannies of political correctness which require men to deny all their natural instincts.
Norway is just such a society, one in which feminism is especially strong. For example, there is a legal requirement for women to form at least 40% of the boards of both private enterprise publicly quoted companies and state owned companies – the latter include any company which is two-thirds owned by a municipality (http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/gender-equality/article.2011-03-06.0387074773). At the level of mainstream Norwegian politics at least, masculinity is severely marginalised. One of Breivik’s complaints is that he was feminised by Norwegian society because of its emphasis on feminism. It could be that at least part of the reason he moved from thought to dramatic action was because his natural male instincts towards violence had no adequate outlet within the society, that he felt suffocated by the cloying feminism.
His capacity for and willingness to use violence sets Breivik apart. It is one thing to hold dissident views, quite another to translate them into dramatic action . The psychological power of violence is immense. It gives significance to all who use it. In the film Bronson, Tom Hardy plays Britain’s longest serving prisoner Michael Gordon Peterson who adopted the name of Charles Bronson. At one point in the film Bronson is being transferred to a new jail. There he is interviewed by the prison governor who says “Bronson, you are ridiculous and pathetic”, which would have been true but for one thing: Bronson’s amazing capacity for violence. This simple quality made him anything but ridiculous and pathetic because it introduced the most disabling of emotions “fear” into the equation. That is what saves Breivik from being pathetic , ridiculous and impotent, his capacity for violence and his will to use it.
Breivik put himself beyond the Pale because of the incontinent manner of his killings, although they were not random because his targets were members of a type of Norwegian Komsomol. But here is a question: what if Beivik had killed only those with power, those who had committed that most fundamental act of treason, namely, the covert conquest of a homeland by mass immigration? Would it be quite so easy to see his actions as maniacally evil?