In my last post discussing the young Swedish ‘humanitarian’ Erik, I briefly mentioned the case of Anders Behring Breivik. In doing so, I alluded to the article I wrote for Counter-Currents in 2015 discussing his actions.
One of our regular commenters Robert Lee brought this up in the following comment:
I find the condemnation of Breivik in this article a bit disturbing. If the men whom he killed were acceptable targets, then so were the women. Colombia doesn’t give a pass to female guerillas just because they are women. Those Labour women weren’t there to bake cassaroles and leave the talking to the men; they were just as involved as anyone else and as such were acceptable targets. Besides, Left-wing men are so feminized that there is practically no difference anyway.
As for Erik, he is a product of his upbringing. Twisted as it is, his worldview is normal, so barring an epiphany, it is unlikely that anyone or anything could convince him that the work he does is wrong, especially since, for him, it would be unconscionable to leave those he attends to join our cause. Unless actual brainwashing is an option, he should be written off like the rest of his ilk.
Anyway, I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all or anything, just my two cents.
First of all I thank you- Robert- for the comment. It is measured and clear, and I wanted to take the time to expand upon my point regarding Breivik.
I started responding in the comments section but thought it would make a good post. I have been thinking on the question for several years now and am pretty set on my perspective, however I know that others who I respect who comment on this site understand it differently, and I appreciate the active discussion it engenders because there are a lot of very important questions at play within it.
This is how I would explain my thoughts:
1. I have absolutely ZERO problem with using violence against women or children in a SELF-DEFENSE situation. For example, if some adult women or some child had a gun pointed at my wife or my own kid and I had to shoot them to protect my own wife/kid, I would do so unhesitatingly.
2. In scenarios of war and battle, I think that same thinking follows. For instance, when the United States invaded Iraq the Fedayeen used women and children as attackers and human shields in cities like Nasiriyah, and U.S. soldiers had to shoot at them as a result. This was horribly unfortunate but could not be avoided. (Note: Breivik didn’t kill ‘children’ it should be noted for accuracy sake, but rather 15-18 year olds.)
3. While Breivik’s attack was- in some manners of thinking- an ‘act of self-defense’ on the macro or theoretical level, I would say it is more appropriate to call it an act of political violence, which I consider somewhat different than the two above mentioned examples.
4. Acts of political violence- to my mind and as I describe in that article I wrote that I linked to– should be carried out in a manner congruent with the ethics and accepted beliefs of the attacker’s tribe, as well as in a manner that will effect the greatest success from a 4GW perspective.
5. Breivik- for all that I understand- was attempting to strike a blow on behalf of regular Norwegian culture/western civilization/ethnic Scandinavians, etc. All those groups have for the most part a history of not treating women and young people under 18 as enemy combatants.
6. Breivik was also- or should have been- focused on engaging in an act of political violence that would be successful and effective on what John Boyd called the ‘moral level’ of war, which is the level most important within 4th Generation Warfare. Breivik launched his attack at a political party that supported the complete Islamization of Norway (for all intents and purposes at least) which was good, HOWEVER in choosing to kill women and and people under 18, he violated the inherited ethics and accepted codes of behavior of the very cultures and people’s on whose behalf he was seeking to fight. Furthermore instead of achieving a victory within the moral level of war, he achieved a failure, because I think it made regular Europeans LESS likely to sympathize with him and his actions.
7. If, on the other hand, he had only attacked adult male members of said political party, I think that regular Europeans would have- even if only subconsciously in some cases- connected Breivik in their minds to many other past ‘freedom fighters’ who engaged in similar acts.
8. Basically, I would characterize one side of my thinking on this as: “Even if these nutjob Progressives want to put women in positions like ‘Secretary of Defense’ and put them in the armed services, that doesn’t mean we should lower our OWN standards and beliefs accordingly. We as Traditionalist-Identitarians believe that women should be wives and mothers and daughters who are protected, loved, and taken care of, and that having women fighting alongside men in foxholes, or getting drafted into the army alongside men, is sick and barbaric. Therefore apart from situations of active self-defense, we should not consider women enemy combatants. Likewise, even if we are fighting sick Islamist nutjobs like ISIS that believe its healthy for 4 year olds to execute prisoners (as ISIS recently had some do), we should not adopt their manner of thinking on the subject and start killing 4 year olds (apart from hypothetical situations of active, immediate self-defense as mentioned above).
I should note too that as the situation in Europe escalates, it is likely there will be far more of those actual immediate self-defense situation.
Those are basically my thoughts on the matter. I have questioned whether I am just fooling myself and actually self-censoring because I am writing under my own name and don’t want to speak uncomfortable or dangerous truths, but that’s not the case. If I am being honest with myself these are my legitimate thoughts on the matter whether I am speaking anonymously or not, its just a highly subtle distinction.
With that being said though, I DO think its possible that Norwegians and Europeans someday have very different feelings vis a vis Breivik. I know Vox Day recently wrote something predicting that one day there will be statues erected to Breivik all across Europe, and with all the horrors that will shortly be coming to Europe as a result of government-instigated mass-immgration, this may well eventually be the case.
Overall the Breivik case is an exceedingly complicated one. I read about 80% of Asne Seierstad’s book about him last summer. It catalogued not just him and the attack but much of the history of mass-immigration in Norway. It highly emotionally affected me- reading it was like watching a car wreck in slow motion, as the reader sees the Norwegian government foolishly and tragically starting the process of mass-Muslim immigration, and then sticking with that process- mindlessly and destructively- even as things begin to crumble. One knows the eventual outcome, and reading about the build up to it retroactively is thus very difficult- nigh unbearable actually.
Seierstad uses a variety of primary sources to show convincingly that Breivik’s mother was mentally ill- most likely Borderline Personality Disorder. It seems as though Breivik either inherited a little bit of this or developed a small amount of mental illness as a result of how his mother raised him (she was a hypersexual woman who had a very weird relationship with him and this must have affected him in some ways). Seierstad thus attempts to connect this modicum of mental illness Breivik likely possessed with his motivation for the attack. She argues that his perception of Norway as being in trouble and threatened and on the road to Islamization and death was completely divorced from reality, and basically a ‘complex’ Breivik had that made his life feel meaningful.
Obviously I disagree with her reading 110% in that regard. Breivik was a weird guy in many respects, but he understood the situation in Norway quite clearly. He was given to some fanciful tangents in his imagination, but overall it is those Progressive’s like Seierstad who are divorced from reality in terms of Norway’s precarious position.
As a result, to offer a bit of a conclusion, I do certainly view the actions Breivik took in the aforementioned manner. However, his understanding of Norway’s existential predicament was accurate. The crimes of Western European governments in abetting terrorism (countless acts that could have been prevented0, mass-rape (Rotherham, Cologne), and population replacement/slow genocide/cultural-suicide far exceed the guilt of any of their opponents, including Breivik.
Editor’s Note: As always, this site does not encourage violence or illegality.
Update: I just thought of another metaphor I’m gonna break things down with: If Stefan Lofven names an 8 year-old as the new Swedish Immigration Czar, and that 8 year-old brings in 3 million Muslim immigrants next year, I’m still not gonna consider that 8 year-old a traitor worthy of death. Its the same principle with the female members of these parties – I’m not comparing women with 8 year-olds, but my point is, its not just about their actions, but about our norms and cultural outlook.