The Rational Acts of Anders Breivik
Talk about Anders Breivik being an insane lunatic is rubbish. The man is not insane. His murderous act, though utterly deplorable, was quite rational if one understands his premises. Anders Breivik was quite rationally attacking, in a kind of opening act of war, those whom he saw as the true enemy of Western culture and civilization: the leftwing progressives, the multiculturalists and globalists, the promoters and enablers of multicultural immigration, the ones who are engaging in the process of tearing down the edifice of historic Europe in order to rebuild a globalist, utopian vision of it, as he, himself, makes very clear. Thus, he perceives his victims as traitors to Western culture and civilization, and the penalty for treason is normally death.
The reason he is not insane is because of this distinction: one might characterize Hitler as a deluded madman because an important target of his persecution and attacks, the Jews, was a dubious one at best, with no credible connection to the problems that were facing Germany. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and communists, in general, were deluded more by envy than madness, and they waged their class warfare based on historical class distinctions, targeting property owners who controlled land and resources, the historical aristocracy and merchant class, which evolved in their jargon into “capitalists”, and opposing these to the landless peasants and workers. In both these utopian visions, it is doubtful that any of these classes were true obstacles to a more perfect world.
Anders Breivik may have been less ambitious, but his target was spot on. His attack was waged on those who embrace an ideology that has put into place a policy that runs contrary to the preservation of, and undermines, historical Western civilization; an ideology that sets willfully in its sights the deconstruction of an historic, culturally Christian Europe and the replacement of this with a universalist, secular, humanist one.
I believe that he may have understood that Muslim immigration was being used as a wedge by leftwing, multicultural globalists to lever their one-world, secular, humanist utopia into existence. It was a means through which they would undermine European national identity by establishing the norm of cultural equivalency, where no civilization or culture is superior to any other, and to replace national identity with a global one, so that people would identify themselves first and foremost as “global citizens,” a term used by U.S. President Obama about himself in a 2008 speech in Berlin.
Are his premises incorrect? Were not the targets of his actions truly the enemies of what he envisioned for Europe? If so, then Anders Breivik may have been a very frustrated man, but he cannot have been insane. He clearly identified the enemy and waged an attack on them. It was a very rational act for someone making war.
What is deplorable is the means that he used to wage his war. He could have done it upon the battlefield of ideas, through persuasion and the democratic process. But we cannot know his level of frustration and how he may have calculated his act, whether or not his calculations will create the circumstances that will enable his vision to be realized, or whether these will end in failure. Only time will tell.
One thing is certain, however: his actions have put the spotlight more emphatically not just on the problem of Muslim immigration and integration, but more importantly, it has put it on the entire multicultural, globalist project that has done so much to create this problem in the first place.
The reason he is not insane is because of this distinction: one might characterize Hitler as a deluded madman because an important target of his persecution and attacks, the Jews, was a dubious one at best, with no credible connection to the problems that were facing Germany. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and communists, in general, were deluded more by envy than madness, and they waged their class warfare based on historical class distinctions, targeting property owners who controlled land and resources, the historical aristocracy and merchant class, which evolved in their jargon into “capitalists”, and opposing these to the landless peasants and workers. In both these utopian visions, it is doubtful that any of these classes were true obstacles to a more perfect world.
Anders Breivik may have been less ambitious, but his target was spot on. His attack was waged on those who embrace an ideology that has put into place a policy that runs contrary to the preservation of, and undermines, historical Western civilization; an ideology that sets willfully in its sights the deconstruction of an historic, culturally Christian Europe and the replacement of this with a universalist, secular, humanist one.
I believe that he may have understood that Muslim immigration was being used as a wedge by leftwing, multicultural globalists to lever their one-world, secular, humanist utopia into existence. It was a means through which they would undermine European national identity by establishing the norm of cultural equivalency, where no civilization or culture is superior to any other, and to replace national identity with a global one, so that people would identify themselves first and foremost as “global citizens,” a term used by U.S. President Obama about himself in a 2008 speech in Berlin.
Are his premises incorrect? Were not the targets of his actions truly the enemies of what he envisioned for Europe? If so, then Anders Breivik may have been a very frustrated man, but he cannot have been insane. He clearly identified the enemy and waged an attack on them. It was a very rational act for someone making war.
What is deplorable is the means that he used to wage his war. He could have done it upon the battlefield of ideas, through persuasion and the democratic process. But we cannot know his level of frustration and how he may have calculated his act, whether or not his calculations will create the circumstances that will enable his vision to be realized, or whether these will end in failure. Only time will tell.
One thing is certain, however: his actions have put the spotlight more emphatically not just on the problem of Muslim immigration and integration, but more importantly, it has put it on the entire multicultural, globalist project that has done so much to create this problem in the first place.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 5:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home