The Complicated Case Of Anders Behring Breivik

The Complicated Case Of Anders Behring Breivik
January 16, 2017 Admin

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.

0saves
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments (22)

  1. Alexander Lund 4 months ago

    Hello, I disagree with your opinion.
    The reason: tu quoque.
    The German Antifa during ist Dresden demonstrations says “German perpretators are no victims” (Deutsche Täter sind keine Opfer)
    If you look at the victims of Dresden you find all ages represented. From the just conceived child to the ninety year old. And in regard to guilt you find everything: from the innocent children (what guilt do they have in Ausschwitz?) to the concentration camp guard. And lets not forget that in Dresden not only ordinary citizens and national socialists lived but also democrats and leftwing people.
    The german Antifa makes no distinction between them. The fifty year old SPD (social democrat) member is as guilty as a five month old baby which is as guilty as a 35 year old concentration camp guard which is guilty as a fourty year old communist. And all are guilty as hell according to the Antifa.

    So, yes those killed at Utoya were underage children, but in thirty or fourty years one of them maybe have become the leader of the multiculti deathdealers of Sweden. And Breivik prevented some of them to reach those positions that may have enabled them to support the eradication of our people. (You know that small Spiders grow into deadly tarantulas or a nice Baby snake turns over time into a deadly Krait.)

    So, if the Antifa says that even children of Nazi-Germany are guilty of the Holocaust and deserve death then according to TU QUOQUE the same applies to the leftwing children.

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      Hello Alexander-

      Well despite our difference on the question I appreciate the comment and the well-argued position. You are certainly right that the Antifa and their paymasters have no problem when our people’s children are killed, and indeed they take delight in the evils so prevalent now across Europe (Rotherham, etc).

      I don’t wish for us to become a reflection of their evil by sinking to their level, but I cannot dispute the facts you argued. It is very likely some of those teens on Utoya island would have grown up to be responsible for much carnage in Norway. Indeed many of those teens were fundamentalist Muslims already. Yet I still adhere to my perspective. I like to think I am pretty black-pilled on the imminence of violence in Europe and just how bad the future will be, but I am perhaps still too idealistic enough for our perspectives to be in full congruence.

      At a certain point it becomes almost like a philosophical question- kind of like the hypothetical of if you could go back in time and kill a random serial kill/evil person as a child, would you do it? My answer to that is no, because we never actually no what the future will hold and its wrong to kill children. That gets way off into the realm of metaphysics though, but it isn’t that far off from real world situations like that of Breivik, so I guess there is some relevance after all.

      Good discussion and much respect regardless.

      -JL

    • Kadphises 4 months ago

      >>So, yes those killed at Utoya were underage children, but in thirty or fourty years one of them maybe have become the leader of the multiculti deathdealers of Sweden. And Breivik prevented some of them to reach those positions that may have enabled them to support the eradication of our people. (You know that small Spiders grow into deadly tarantulas or a nice Baby snake turns over time into a deadly Krait.)<<
      I think comparing children of our own race raised with the wrong ideology to baby snakes or tarantulas is definitely the wrong way of looking at it. Many people grow up, they learn from experience and from books. And truth is on our side. We cannot say whether any of those kids would have become a multicultural ethnosuicidalist in the future, or whether any of them would have grown up to reject their parents' ideology and become a hero of our cause.
      As for the antifa, they are just as perverted and callous in their ideology as Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. We should aim to distinguish ourselves from these Bolshevist Untermenschen by doing what is necessary to defend our people and bring as many behind our cause as possible, not to mirror them or the Islamists in their cruelty and senseless violence.

  2. Charles 4 months ago

    that guy deserves nothing but a bullet to the head, child killer

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      Well Charles, you provide an equally stark perspective from the opposite side as David I guess.

  3. Kadphises 4 months ago

    As usually, I agree for the most part. And I think it is very unlikely that in the future statues will be erected in Breivik’s honour. What he did was just too wrong, ethically and strategically. He killed young boys and girls of his own race and nation, who might well have joined our struggle under the current circumstances. This can never be celebrated as a heroic act. But it is possible that a future nationalist government will reevaluate his case, considering his troubled upbringing and his sincere motivation to fight for his people, rehabilitate him and give him the chance to live a humble life among his folk.

    But I am not really convinced with regards to traitorous, adult, often childless and post-reproductive, female political leaders. Would any hypothetical action against them be ethically or strategically worse than against male leaders, even if they play a crucial role in the European ethnosuicide?

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      Interesting take Kadphises- I appreciate you expounding. You sort of represent the dichotomy opinion then, with full renunciation of Utoya, but support for the Labour Party part including the female politicians.

      Another side your comment made me think of is the self-perception of the female politicians regarding such things. As hardcore feminists they would probably strongly want to ‘face harm’ just as much as the male ones. Kind of like these female army members who are so gung ho about trying to become rangers. One could argue that that backs up your argument- they consider themselves no different than the male politicians so why should we? Then again you could look at it the opposite way too though, and think of it as ‘not giving them the satisfaction’ of viewing them in such a manner. An interesting discussion and most likely one that has been had many times before through history.

      • Kadphises 4 months ago

        I think in the case of Jo Cox that it was still ethically and strategically wrong, as she was the mother of two young kids, but it is not as clear-cut as in the case of Breivik.
        But in the purely hypothetical case of, e.g., Angela Merkel, would we see it as very different from an action against an adult male traitorous politician? She has obviously dedicated her life to becoming a career politician, has rejected motherhood and instead deceived her own people and our European neighours by inviting hordes of young Muslim males for her own emotional satisfaction. She has to take responsibility for the crimes committed against peaceful Europeans, and also against innocent tourists and students from East Asia visiting Europe with respect for our culture and traditions. We don’t support any violence here, but if a radical resistance fighter targeted her, would we really consider it differently from a male traitor being targeted?

  4. Laguna Beach Fogey 4 months ago

    I can’t find it within myself to condemn Breivik. He eradicated enemies of our race. For that he deserves recognition and gratitude.

    Our own worst enemies, of course, are our own flesh-and-blood who have been corrupted and seek to murder us.

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      I also wonder if and how public perception might have differed if he had died in the attacks. I believe he wanted to die in them at some points of the preparation if I remember the Seierstad book correctly, could be wrong though. I do think that it would have put him at least a tiny bit more in the ‘David’ role, and would have therefore made it at least slightly more successful at the moral level of war.

      Instead he lives and ended up complaining about the lack of up to date video consoles, and making Nazis salutes and (if I am seeing it correctly) shaving his eyebrows. Bad optics in all three to say the least. Although if I was in solitary confinement for life I would probably volley for the best entertainment and distraction I could too…

  5. dashui 4 months ago

    In the future he could be seen as a John Brown.

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      That’s an excellent point/example Dashui. He’s sort of a contradictory figure himself, even within the modern left-wing educational system. They teach about that era in a manner that is fully congruent with his beliefs, but about him specifically in a not entirely positive manner.

      At least that was the case when I was a kid… Not sure now. I remember reading in ‘The People’s History of the United States’ by Howard Zinn that Brown was portrayed that way (as crazy and overly violent) “because of entrenched patriarchal white supremacism and slavery denial” or some sort of similar claptrap, so its possible by now they have sanctified his role and teach him in an entirely positive way.

      Definitely evocative of the Breivik killings though in the extremely violent nature combined with a motivation that many people in both cases support.

  6. SteveRogers42 4 months ago

    To desire the end is to desire the means.

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      Aww, very good comment Steve. A very wise point.

  7. Laguna Beach Fogey 4 months ago

    It’s amusing to me that no one can name the Muslim truck driver in the Nice massacre, who killed 86 people–but everyone knows the name of Breivik, who killed 77 people.

    • Author
      Admin 4 months ago

      Very true. There have been such a vastly higher number of attacks by Muslims that it is nearly impossible to remember the names separately. Breivik though is a standalone, at least as far as modern Europe is concerned. Very telling, in a number of ways.

    • Francis Meyrick 4 months ago

      Mohammed Bouhlel
      but then, they are all ‘Mohammed’. The Perfect Man. Some role model.

      • Author
        Admin 4 months ago

        Yes, most common name in dozens of Western European cities now too..

  8. Delphi 4 months ago

    There was absolutely no justice to Breivik’s actions. If I were to ever condone that kind of thing, it would be the systematic punishment of muslim rapists and nothing else. People who had committed crimes, and clearly deserved punishment, not naive socialist fools.

    • Francis Meyrick 4 months ago

      QUOTE: “…the systematic punishment of Muslim rapists and nothing else.”
      Ah, the concept of what does, and what does NOT, constitute a LEGITIMATE TARGET. Right?
      Pouring over some photos showing you just how vicious those guys are (women grabbed off the streets in broad daylight, beaten to a pulp, black eyes, faces so swollen they can hardly see, bruises, lacerations, cigarette burns, MAJOR, life threatening internal injuries, and lifetime soul scarring) then I agree wholeheartedly with the ‘systematic punishment’ bit. Well, systematic annihilation, anyway.
      But is it that simple? I ask you the question. How about Social Workers who systematically turn the other way (for YEARS) when young girls are being systematically abused? Not just one, or a dozen, or a hundred, but THOUSANDS. Senior Police Officers doing the same thing? Local politicians LYING through their teeth (for Muslim votes), and HIDING plentiful evidence? How about the Burgermeister who pushes through the building of a “refugee center” in a small community, DESPITE the overwhelming opposition of the local populace? How about the same Burgermeister, who afterwards, when confronted with the fact that young girls and women are being attacked by low IQ, borderline retard immigrants, replies: “Well, just don’t go out at night if you are a woman, and don’t go near there.” At which stage does such a vile, unethical, deranged traitor make himself into a legitimate target? I’m just asking.
      How about the fruitcake Mayor of Cologne, who has racked up one outrage after another? From furiously denying that immigrants were involved in the mass rapes on New Year’s eve, to muzzling the Police, to restricting News Media reporting, to FIRING the Police Chief, to….. at what stage does that daft, deluded bat make herself into a juicy, legitimate target for an angry Patriot determined to make a point? I’m not advocating it, but I can understand people getting really mad at the woman. I could go on. How about those Lefty Losers, who are so convinced of the impotence of the Patriotic Front, that they OPENLY say that the demise of native populations into persecuted minorities in their own homeland is THEIR AVOWED AIM? At what stage is the statement: “I’m suicidal, and I’m taking YOU with me!” a pretty good declaration of hostility to everybody else? And, as such, the self declaration that you are a Legitimate Target?
      How about Judges, who throw the book (and the library) at leaders of “Britain First” and “Pegida” (and who throw them in jail at the most piddling of made up excuses) BUT WHO ALLOW themselves to be politically pressurized to RELEASE complete cock-a-mamy HATE PREACHERS and alleged RAPISTS on BAIL or on endless PROBATION? At what stage does SUCH a weakling/appeaser make HIMSELF into a legitimate target? I’m not advocating it, but I can see some angry Patriots wanting to make it happen.

      So, did you think your statement through? For there are those who would disagree with your mindset, and, indeed, see YOU as part of the problem…

  9. Telémaco 4 months ago

    I’ve seen a lot of leftist creeping joke laughing at many misfortunes and claiming it’s freedom of expression, I wonder if those same people who like those jokes so much, would like some of us to start joking about Breivik’s victims.

Pingbacks

  1. […] The Complicated Case Of Anders Behring Breivik […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*