“The attacks on the government headquarters were preventive attacks on traitors to the nation, people committing or planning to commit cultural destruction, including destruction of Norwegian culture and the Norwegian ethnicity.”
Consider factors such as crime rate, rising violence against ethnic Norwegians, and demographic realities in his native country. Then, consider the means used to combat these things.
There is some evil to be found in any direction. There is some good to be found in any direction.
This could be considered a counterforce and/or countervalue preemption, depending on one's perspective.
One way or the other, regardless of how I feel about his actions, I have to conclude that Breivik acted rationally according to his worldview.
Comments?
I completely get it...can't see shooting kids tho...smoke the freaking peeps themselves, make it count!
ReplyDeleteI think he hit his greatest enemies, the enablers, in their weakest and most important spot. He eliminated their progeny.
ReplyDeleteThis comes to mind, not quoted correctly, but you boys get the gist:
"and Magua will eat his heart, but first he will make the gray hair see that his seed is gone from the earth".
Harden your resolve, this is going to be a cast iron MF before it's over.
Breivik is one of those neo-Conservatives who blindly supports Israel. He hates Islam not so much because the Muslim immigrants rape Norwegian women and invade his country, but rather because they are the enemies of the Jews. A careful reading of his manifesto makes it clear that he is a Zionist. Shooting (primarily)White kids who might be confused politically, or indoctrinated by their parents and schools, is no way to win hearts and minds, or any other struggle. They are the victims of the controlled media and government brainwashing. They were kids. They were also among the brightest and potentially politcially active kids. Could they be saved? Sure. When the NSDAP began recruiting in Berlin, Goebbels found the largest pool of new National Socialists came from former Communists...not because the two ideologies are similiar, they are diametric opposites, regardless of what neo-Cons say. It is easier to switch a person from one political perspective to another, than to swith a nonpolitical person on. Breivik is a Zionist.
ReplyDeleteAnon-
ReplyDeleteGood points, especially in re- NSDAP recruitment wisdom.
I had not before considered the zionist angle; I don't know enough to make that call. I do have his manifesto, perhaps I should re-read it.
Killing one's own people does seem counter-productive, especially since, as you said, it is easier to change politically active types than it is to jumpstart politically dead folks.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. Care to share some of your reasoning about the manifesto and zionism? It will be some time before I can access the document.
AP
There is a point to be made that we all act according to our worldview.Obama,Bush,Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Gandhi,Tojo,Churchill,Thatcher,Buddha,Jesus,Mohammed,Tina Turner,Eric Holder,etc...
ReplyDeleteEverybody acts according to their worldview.
The youngest of the "kids" was 17 years old. They were old enough to take up weapons to fight for their cause. "Kids" of similar age have done so throughout history. They were old enough to create new human life, and to take it. They were voluntarily taking part in the system dedicated to maximizing the gang rape, murder, and dispossession of their fellow countrymen.
ReplyDeleteThey were the up-and-coming ruling class dedicated to the destruction of his country and his people.
His actions were a legitimate act of war. Legitimate acts of war always get defined as mere criminality by the targets, if they have the power to do so. The laws of war came into existence only because 1) the European monarchies had a pretty effective balance-of-power system that prevented any one hegemon, 2) the stakes weren't all-or-nothing, weren't genocidal. In the absence of such conditions - "inter arma, silent leges".
The Romans knew a lot of things that we have forgotten, but will rediscover.
I can not and will not condemn him. I will not say in public and under my own name what I have said here, either - not yet. But the day will come.
He is a mass murderer. He attacked unarmed children and murdered them. I hate communists/socialists/statists also, but attacking unarmed children at a youth camp is despicable. One might shoot a dozen bunnies in a basket, but one cannot call himself a "warrior" for doing such a thing.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the FBI's Hostage Roasting Team killed 17 children to save the children. We find that despicable. Is Breivik any different?
That said, I do agree that what he did was not actually useful.
ReplyDeleteHad he stayed free and kept that willingness to act in reserve, or applied to to organizing a serious movement, he would have accomplished more.
Anonymous said, in reference to National Socialists and Communists: "...not because the two ideologies are similiar, they are diametric opposites,"
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ, sir. They are BOTH statist apparatuses. They both are collectivist in nature. They both deny natural rights in favor of the power of the state over individual people, thus the state own the people. National Socialism assumes control and direction of industries where Communism assumes ownership. Both happen at the point of a government gun. Both are, in practice, the denial of property rights. Whether the government goon has a smile on his face, or whether he is wrapped in the National Flag, as he steals your life and livelihood from you, makes no difference. The two are, in essence, the same.
The reason young people joined from one to the other, is that it is always exciting to be on a winning team. Youth is easily lead.
Longbow-
ReplyDeleteA perspective question, for devil's advocate's sake-
Were the folks who nuked Japan warriors?
Were the folks who firebombed Dresden warriors?
Murder, collateral damage...
Defined by the victors and war crimes tribunals.
AP, your question: "Were the folks who nuked Japan warriors?
ReplyDeleteWere the folks who firebombed Dresden warriors?"
The answer is yes. Those crew of the aircraft, were delivering a bomb payload to a target. They were told their target was a legitimate one and that their actions were in accordance with the laws of war. A Soldier, must, is obligated to, put full faith and confidence in his commander. Until such time as his commander gives him an order to commit an obvious crime, he is duty bound to obey. Soldiers are under UCMJ (coercive) authority.
Was Dresden, for example, a legitimate target, and was the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians justifiable? My answer is an unqualified no. The politicians and the General Officers who ordered that attack could be considered war criminals. The aircrews who flew the missions should not be.
Was Breivik acting alone? Was he a soldier under a chain of command? Was there legitimate political/military authority ordering him to act as he did?
Let us compare apples to apples.
Longbow-
ReplyDeleteSo, in your opinion, killing children is defensible if one wears a uniform, but not if one is not under military command?
A political or military authority's permission does not make an act right, any more than the absence of such makes an act wrong.
A pilot dropping a bomb on a population center is fully responsible for his action.
We can't pass the buck.
And we cannot condemn a man for not having someone to pass the buck to.
While I am not defending him, the fact is, he considered himself at war.
The child victims of Breivik, Nagasaki, Dresden? They're all just as dead, one way or the other.
AP
That is not what I said. You asked if the aircrews who dropped the bomb were the criminals.
ReplyDeleteI would simply propose that they might or might not have known what the target was, and might or might not have known of the firestorm which would erupt.
The politicians and General Officers certainly did know. It is they who are the criminals, not the errand boys.
Shooting the messenger may make one feel better but it doesn't address the one who sent him.
If a soldier is ordered to go out and deliberately murder non-combatants, he is obligated to disobey that order. If an aircrew is told to go bomb a target without knowing the nature of it, nor the specific ordnance to be delivered, they cannot be held liable. Their commanders can and should be.
Near the end of the war against Germany, American soldiers, from the 45th Infantry Division, lined up and shot the prison guards of Dachau. That was a war crime. Every last soldier who participated, from battalion commander to private, should have been tried for murder.
See the photo here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dachau_execution_coalyard_1945-04-29.jpg
We do not disagree on that point.
Breivik was not making war on legitimate military targets. He was not under any coercive authority (as far as we can see). He murdered people.
Principles do not change, only circumstances do.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to misrepresent you.
ReplyDeleteI think we mostly agree, although as far as legitimacy goes, I give no weight whatsoever to political authority or the blessing of a nation state, or any other collective. To me, an insurgent is just as justified as is a soldier in fighting for a certain cause. I find little to no difference between a soldier who blind-drops bombs onto civilian skyscrapers and a "terrorist" who flies planes into them, other than cost and ROI. That does not win me many friends, as you can imagine.
I believe there are independent terrorists, and state sponsored ones.
One more question-
Do you absolve soldiers from responsibility for their deeds if they drop bombs on unknown targets, killing noncombatants?
"Breivik was not making war on legitimate military targets. "
ReplyDeleteWhat would have been legitimate military targets, and what purpose would have been accomplished by taking them on?
The government and ruling elite in Norway are universally in favor of increased immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, and making space in the public sphere for Islam and sharia, while denigrating and restricting Christianity and indigenous Norwegian culture and traditions. If one was to lay out a military plan for putting a stop to this, it would involve - first and foremost - sending soldiers to disarm and/or kill the military/enforcement arm of this regime. Specifically, the police enforcing the dictates of the leftist politicians. Some gun battles in the streets, some blown-up police headquarters, a bloody mess made of whatever the Norwegian military tried as a counterattack, and then the politicians would be informed they were no longer in charge of the country. In the face of blatant military defeat, they might even accept that.
Ok. Breivik is one man (I am assuming his Knights Templar is just a line of crap he's feeding the police to make them waste time and money looking for something nonexistent). Are you suggesting he should have started shooting at cops or Norwegian military instead?
Keeping that question in mind: in the USA, if you want to oppose the creeping militarization of the police and encroachments of the TSA and so on and so forth, what do you do? Attack the nearest military base? Lay seige to your local police station? Or do you choose other targets?
This has been discussed, extensively, in places like WRSA and Kerodin's blog and elsewhere. In fact, just today, WRSA is quoting TL Davis on a sentiment that, frankly, is pure terrorist. Yet nobody suggests that there's something illegitimate about this, or that Joe Stack should have taken out his frustrations on Fort Hood or some such place instead of IRS office workers.
Breivik clearly went through the same debate, and came to similar conclusions: attacking the enemy on ground of their choosing and definition serves no purpose except to quicken defeat.
You are wrong.
A couple further thoughts. Attacking "legitimate military targets" would not have had any sort of impact. Suicide by cop is a term with a well-defined meaning. Even if such an attack had not resulted in Breivik's quick death or capture, it would have had no other impact. Shooting at cops, big deal - it's worth a few blaring pieces on the evening news, then time to move on to a sex scandal or something. Who in the USA remembers Carl Drega? Just some nutcase who flipped out, shot some cops, and got shot by the cops.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened instead is that every single political figure in Norway knows, without the shadow of a doubt, that it IS possible for some apparently normal and capable Norwegian to become so deranged by these completely reasonable and beneficial leftist policies that they will do completely unpredictable and horrific things. They've become aware that they're walking in a minefield. I don't think they yet realize the true density of the mines, but they at least BELIEVE now that they exist, whereas before it would have been impossible to get them even that far. (In the USA for example, how many government employees genuinely believe that a militia group might start an organized insurrection? They wouldn't be picking on constitutionalists unless they weren't afraid of them.) This at least opens the possibility of convincing them to stop what they are doing. It also may modify their behavior in other ways - whether moderating the madness, or pushing harder out of fear and thus triggering a worse reaction. As for downsides - discrediting the anti-islamization movement? What anti-islamization movement? In Norway it essentially doesn't exist, everyone is very polite and keeps such prohibited thoughts to themselves. But now they all have the example: at least one other person was thinking this, and acted. Everyone knows it. Everyone believes the issue at least exists, now.
In that regard it was a masterstroke.
Oh, yeah, seventy dead teenagers and twentysomethings. As I said before: they were old enough to know what they were doing and participating in, and to take responsibility for it. I will not participate in guilt trips over this.
Anders Breivik and John Brown have a lot in common.
The "kids" weren't children, they were young adults in a camp to train them to be just their parents, ideologically.
ReplyDeleteBreivik not only acted rationally, he acted heroically.
Pretty much every complete psycho thinks they are somehow justified. If it is for the fatherland (hitler) or because a dog told you to (son of sam) or whatever it doesn't really matter. The thing is that their perspective is so skewed, usually by being insane, that it is totally out of the views of the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteRollory,
ReplyDeleteYou've made some good points that I think should not go ignored.
I think you and I agree on quite a bit concerning Breivik.
Your statements explain both why Breivik's actions served -in part- their intended purpose, and one reason why American constitutionalists will never be taken seriously in this country.
Governments speak one language, and it isn't "pretty please with a cherry on top".
"The thing is that their perspective is so skewed, usually by being insane, that it is totally out of the views of the rest of society."
ReplyDeleteYou are completely right. Anybody who would oppose the TSA violently is obviously insane, morally wrong, and completely out of step with American society. Anybody who would suggest that there is a reasonable time to actually shoot at police officers, equally so.
Longbow: National Socialism posits that in some areas group interests of the biologically related nation trump individual interests. It states that the purpose of the state is to promote the health, growth, and expansion of the race. Communism posits that everyone can be equaled in ability and needs by destroying individuality. It states that leveling would make everyone the same. That makes them opposites. What matters is not whether it is big government or small government, but whether it is our government or their government. We live under their government. If it was our government, it would be a different story. Libertarianism is a non-starter because when individuals of quality face masses of quantity, they are overwhelmed.
ReplyDeleteRollory, I'm afraid that you are incorrect in your statement that Breivik's youngest victims were 17. Margrethe Boeyum Kloeven, 16, from Baerum, was a pretty blue eyed blonde girl. I encourage you to Google "Norway Shooter Victims" and do some research. There were other 16, 15, and 14 year old victims. How many of us made solid decisions when we were that age? Decisions we deserved to be shot for?
ReplyDeleteThe shooter's Zionism: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/25/norway-shooter-anders-breivik-s-zionism-in-line-with-pro-israel-european-right.html
ReplyDeleteAND
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/73184/what-to-make-of-the-oslo-attacker%E2%80%99s-zionism/
anon@ 2/8 6:50 -
ReplyDeleteThe list of names I saw did not mention anyone younger than 17. Thank you for the correction.