Robert Henderson, Living in a Madhouse, April 29, 2012
The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik in Oslo is truly remarkable. It is not Breivik who is fearful , but the Norwegian political mainstream trembling their way towards what they hope will be a politically correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:
“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison, despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to be criminally responsible.
But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in the trial.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html)
Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be so politically incorrect.
Liberals are desperately struggling to fit the man into their fantasy world where everyone is wondrously multicultural and gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass immigration or the denial of human nature and difference which is the essence of political correctness. This entails a blind refusal to engage with Breivik’s declared motives and general criticism of modern Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world generally) . In a nutshell, they do not know how to rationally respond to a man who challenges everything they believe in and can only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who can be viewed in the same way that the audience for a nineteenth century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.
The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of the indoctrination of Norwegians. The song , Children of the Rainbow, contains lyrics such as these:
“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
Together shall we live, every sister, brother
Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian children to sing that and the Hitler Youth leading renditions of the Horst Wessel song ?
Three tactics have been used to negate the danger Breivik represents: say he is insane, seek to censor his testimony on the ground that he will use the trial to promote his political ideas or attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person. This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere. Consequently, even outside of Norway there is precious little attempt to present reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead liberals generally have offered feeble personal abuse of his person, bald assertions that his arguments are wrong and delusional and claims that he must be mad.
Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has raised? Because they know in their heart of hearts that their declared political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite decades of politically correct propaganda and the punishment of those who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal sanction’s such as loss of employment, humans still feel what they have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and territoriality. Liberals know this in the most certain way because they , like everyone else, have the feelings which lead human beings to naturally think in terms of membership of a group and to favour those like themselves. This commonly makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching, a trait most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant settlement.
It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy of avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in England) a very white and very English world . (The favourite white liberal excuse for denying themselves the experience of the joy of diversity is that it is a matter of class which causes them to end up well away from the diversity. This , the white liberal claims, is because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity. It is an argument which does not seem to provide an adequate garment to cover the hypocrisy of the likes of the leftist folk singer Billy Bragg who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became invaded by ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the whitest and most English of counties).
When people support an ideology which they know is false or at the least not objectively demonstrable, they invent excuses for reality not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a consequence of social conditioning. They then follow the logic of that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals) harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts to re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail, as they always do, the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the required alterations in human behaviour. This provides an excuse to continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian restrictions on how people may behave. The liberal’s chosen vehicle for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political correctness or, to the politically and academically inclined, cultural Marxism.
But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are supposed to be according to the politically correct canon, liberals, even the most committed believers, also have a terrible fear that if people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a revolution which might, at best, overthrow what they fervently want or, more venally , could result in dire consequences from themselves as the rage of those who have suffered from the enforcement of political correctness and mass immigration is let off the leash. At the very least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of political correctness would vanish. This would remove the livelihoods of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political correctness and even more from those who pay lip-service to political correctness simply to obtain one of the politically correct sinecures. There is a very large vested interest in maintaining political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with power.
If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become the elite ideology of most of the Western world. That makes it toxic and potentially dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism. It is catastrophically pernicious because it is totalitarian in its nature for it reaches into every aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any situation is the politically correct one.
The ills of mass immigration and the enforcement of multiculturalism require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those who either cannot fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or will not assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral culture ,must of itself be immediately divisive and, eventually, if immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the original population becoming a minority in their own land and their own culture, at the least, badly mangled by that stark change in fortune.
The state promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a homogeneous society, but this may be an effect rather than a cause of the mass immigration. Rather than being the result of a conscious plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has happened, control native dissent and attempt to deal with the inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy such as multiculturalism which pretends that there is no such thing as tribalism in the human DNA and everything is consequently for the best in all possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it provides the elite with a narrative for what has happened which diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.
The ill effects of political correctness as it relates to issues other than those arising from race and ethnicity are less immediately obvious. The ever growing censorship of what may be said or done is obvious enough, but there are other more subtle effects. Because its tenets run directly contrary to the way human beings naturally behave as individuals and in the mass , political correctness will never gain general acceptance, but what it can do is inhibit the normal social relationships of a society by making it dangerous for individuals to behave naturally. By definition, this must undermine the efficient functioning of any community because people are being asked to behave in a manner which is alien to their natural function. .
The idea that discrimination – the Great Satan of political correctness – is self-evidently and always wrong is a literal nonsense. Humans like every other organism have to make choices. Choice requires discrimination. We discriminate in finding people sexually attractive; in liking them as people; in choosing someone because we believe they are competent to do something and in a myriad other ways. People have to discriminate between people many times a day. All of these things are matters, like race, over which individuals have no control because the judgement is made by others not themselves. Except for a few very advanced cases of political correctness, liberals make no complaint about such discrimination. The choice of race, gay rights and sexual equality as the great forbidden subjects of discrimination is arbitrary, no more than an ideological whim.
When the state interferes in the necessary and natural use of discrimination, which includes the exercise of preference for those who most resemble ourselves , they distort society. Breivik’s prime complaint apart from the effects of multiculturalism generally and Islam in particular is that Norwegian society has become feminised. There is force in his argument. Norway has probably gone further than any other country in forcing through the use of law and incessant propaganda women into areas where they were considerably under-represented, most notably in politics (http://www.norway.org/aboutnorway/society/Equal-opportunities/gender/politics/)and business (http://www.20-first.com/406-0-a-personal-account-of-the-quota-legislation-in-norway.html).
Breivik believes that the changes in male roles and the straitjacket of feminism on Norway has emasculated Norwegian men. He has a point. The films of the Stieg Larsson Millennium trilogy (set in Sweden not Norway, but Sweden is a country which is part of the general Scandinavian appetite for feminism) show us a very strange world in which men are all viewed as potential rapists unless they have been emasculated by feminist propaganda, women revenge themselves on men with violence and women play the authority roles in the same way that blacks do in Hollywood films (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/politically-incorrect-film-reviews-the-millenium-trilogy/). Looking at the personnel involved in the Breivik trial, it is eerily reminiscent of the world depicted in the Millennium films. The senior judge and one of the leading prosecutors are women. The men who appear , such as Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippstad , commonly have a strangulated emasculated manner . Interviews with many of the Norwegian men speaking about the Breivik killings also display this quality.
Why does this matter? There are fundamental, and to everyone other than liberals, obvious reasons why men are normally masculine and women are feminine in their behaviour. That is the way Nature has crafted their respective general personalities and behaviours. Male dominance is the norm amongst mammals and it would be extraordinary if it was not present in human beings. Even if it was possible to remove the trait through conditioning, it would beg the question of whether it would be wise to do so. At best it would be a reckless gamble. Human beings need to feel that their lives have purpose. Take away the natural roles of men and women and most will at some point in their lives feel that their natural purpose has been subverted.
As for women, the fact that they bear children of itself writes the general script of both their lives and personalities. There will always be women who do not want children or who fail to display a strong maternal instinct if they do have them, but the great majority will naturally behave in a feminine manner.
The natural instincts of Norwegian men and women have not been abolished, but men entering the Norwegian elite will tend to be those who are less strongly masculine and this trait will continue for as long as political correctness is the dominant ideology. Any human group selects new members from those who most resemble the group. In the case of Norway there will be the strongest selection pressure for emasculated men to be selected for the elite because so many women, most of whom will be strongly feminist because that is the mentality which pushes them forward in modern Norwegian political life, will be within the group. Any man who is both naturally masculine and espouses masculine behaviour, will be excluded. Below the Norwegian political elite will be the men who retain their masculinity, but even they will be hamstrung by the cloying feminist dominance.
Exactly what sort of society will emerge in such circumstances is problematic, but it is worth noting that the predominance of feminism in Norway creates a situation potentially more immediately destabilising than that of immigrants because women, unlike immigrants, already form more than 50% of the population. There is a majority with a vested interest in perpetuating and expanding feminist privileges at the expense of men.
In the longer term a situation of great irony could arise in Norway, with the demands of feminism clashing with those of other groups created by the politically correct, especially Muslims, to crush feminist policies.
The management of the trial
While they are refusing to engage with Breivik’s complaints against what the Norwegian political elite have done – permitted mass immigration and unceasingly promoted multiculturalism in particular and political correctness generally with their consequent profound changes to Norwegian society – liberals everywhere are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulation about how civilised it all is, a positive model of a modern liberal society which shows how morally superior is the politically correct view of the world. Ralph Waldo Emmerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour/the faster we counted the spoons” comes to mind, as well it should, for when the claim of liberal rectitude and beatific self-restraint is looked at in detail it rapidly collapses.
From the time of the massacre the Norwegian authorities have carefully controlled the narrative. Until the trial began , apart from brief court appearances Breivik was kept under wraps, most of the time in solitary. His only conduit to the outside world has been his defence lawyer Geir Lippstad , a man who radiates permanent liberal angst and puts in the shade British barristers representing those deemed to have “racist” or “far right” views who routinely trot out something along these lines: “My client is utterly despicable but you must put that out of your minds and judge him on the evidence”. At his first press conference after agreeing to represent Breivik, Lippstad blithely stated that his client was mad (a claim he later withdrew). Before the trial began Lippstad was wringing his hands again about the defence he was being asked to present and made it quite clear that it was both repugnant to him and nonsense.
The trial is being very carefully stage-managed . Parts are being broadcast, but the court has ruled that neither Breivik’s testimony – both his statement and cross examination – or that of his witnesses can be broadcast. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17312079). This allows the liberal dominated mainstream media and politics to give their version of what Breivik is and stands for. They wish to show him at best as a contemptible and negligible person who is not worth listening to and at worst a strange creature so far from the norm as to be beyond any consideration other than that of a monstrous curiosity.
As so often with modern liberals, personal abuse is freely offered against those who refuse to accept the politically correct view of the world, despite the fact that the politically correct supposedly hold that a person’s appearance is utterly irrelevant and derogatory mention of it a prime example of the liberal’s Great Satan: discrimination. Here is a good example from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph : “The voice gave little away, but the killer’s eyes, posture and physique spoke volumes. As the days wore on and he became unsettled by the prosecution’s questioning, white specks of dandruff flecked Breivik’s dark jacket, beads of sweat glistened on a face pockmarked by acne, and a motionless comb-over grew more slicked and gleaming.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9218529/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Six-days-in-the-company-of-a-mass-murderer.html)
As the public cannot watch Breivik in action, no one outside the court has a clue whether the reports of his behaviour, looks and words are a truthful representation of what is going on. For all we know He might be wiping the floor with the prosecutor and any other hostile questioner. The same will apply when the witnesses for the defence are called.
The management of the proceedings is further heightened by the broadcast of the evidence from witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, you get the other side of the story in full and directly (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html – 2.31 pm). With Breivik’s evidence there is not only the missing personal behaviour, but the quotes which appear in the media are selective, concentrating not unnaturally on the more sensational of his words.
Amongst the self-congratulatory liberal tosh about what a model of liberal restraint the trial is can be found the contention that Breivik would not have been given such licence to put his views in many other Western jurisdictions including that of England. I doubt whether that is true. Breivik is arguing that he acted in self-defence, the danger to himself (and the rest of Norwegian society) being the policies of allowing mass immigration, the promotion of multiculturalism and the strangulation of any public dissent through the rigorous application of political correctness which he feared would lead to the destruction of Norwegian culture and that this would effectively leave any Norwegian at the mercy of forces inimical to Norwegian values and customs, in his eyes most especially Islam This would at best leave Norwegians as a subject people in their own ancestral homeland or at worst result in their complete obliteration as a people .
Those are of course political statements, but that does not disqualify them as reasons why someone should have a rational fear of what is happening and that the consequences of what is occurring – mass immigration and multiculturalism – could plausibly lead to a mortal threat to Norwegian society and by extension to Breivik. The fact that they are so politically dangerous for the political elite would make it difficult for any legal system anywhere to simple refuse such a justification of a plea self-defence. This was the case with Breivik because before he was allowed to read his statement there were strong hints that he would not be allowed to read it even if it was not televised. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9205393/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-barred-from-reading-new-manifesto-in-court.html).
There is also a question mark over whether Breivik is pleading self-defence in the sense that it would be understood in an English court:
“8.05am Before the court started, journalists were spoken to by the translators who said that “self-defence” was a misleading translation for the grounds for acquittal Breivik is invoking. A better translation would be “necessity”, they said as the clause he’s referring to is about defence of property and defence of others, not solely about defence of your own person.”
08.28am While we wait for a decision, more on the clarification from the translators regarding Breivik’s defence of “necessity” rather than “self-defence”. In Norway section 47 of the penal code states:
No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone’s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.”
The charges brought against Breivik also potentially provide grounds for challenge. Here are the salient parts of the indictment:
“THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OF OSLO
hereby indict Anders Behring Breivik, born 13.02.1979 currently remanded in custody before the Oslo District Court, pursuant to section 39 of the Penal Code, for sentence to be passed for his transfer to compulsory mental health care, cf. chapter 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, for having in a psychotic state committed an otherwise punishable act, namely in violation of:
Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letters a and b, cf. sections 148 first paragraph first penalty alternative and 233 first and second paragraphs
for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code, first paragraph, first penalty alternative (bringing about an explosion whereby loss of human life or extensive damage to the property of others could easily be caused) and of section 233 first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.
II Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letter b, cf. section 233 first and second paragraphs
for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 223 of the Penal Code, first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously intimidating a population.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206336/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-indictment-in-full.html)
Consider the passage “with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.” Breivik was certainly not “seriously intimidating a population”. Rather, he was seriously intimidating the ruling political elite by attacking the generation who were being trained to become the political elite. As for “seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority”, it is true the bomb attack was meant to harm members of the government including the Norwegian Prime Minister, but in a representative democracy even the death of a Prime Minister should not “seriously disrupt a function of vital importance to society”.
Breivik’s mental state
The calls for Breivik to be considered mad unambiguously show the authoritarian nature of the modern liberal mind. Compare their calls for him to be judged insane with the treatment of others who have killed for political reasons such as Islamic fanatics and IRA bombers. They were and are not treated by liberals as deranged but as terrorists at worst, although plenty of liberals will always find ways of qualifying even that judgement because of the terrorist’s supposed motives and environment. As Breivik observed if he was a “bearded jihadist” no psychiatric investigation would have been asked for. (1.11 pmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)
Breivik is really in the same bracket as such people. Indeed, it could be argued that his motivation is far more rational that, for example, the Jihadist who believes he will go to paradise with 72 virgins to use as he sees fit. He has real fears about the future of his country and a clear idea of what he is doing, viz:
“10.28am Prosecutor Engh asked Breivik if he thought there were any parallels between what he had done and a war situation.
Breivik replied that it was “not a war but a political attack …. and I was trying to prevent a future civil war. Not just me but other political nationalists – we believe that this will happen” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)
Moreover, ostensibly at least, Breivik has not killed on a whim, as an exercise in sadism, to revenge himself for personal slights or injuries or because he has a proven mental disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia with voices in his head telling him to kill people before they killed him. He has no psychiatric history and , despite the best efforts of the first set of psychiatrists who examined him to diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic, this judgement was contradicted by a second examination which found Breivik to be sane. The other strong pointer to his sanity is the fact that he successfully executed a meticulously planned and complex attack.
Breivik cooperated with the first psychiatrists who adjudicated on his sanity but not the second. Could it be that the first psychiatrists, faced with the physical reality of someone saying all the things they as, as politically correct believers, could not bear to think anyone who so contradicted their views was sane? The second set of psychiatrists were not confronted with such a reality made flesh and came to their judgement simply on his known views and behaviour, a much less emotionally involving business. Perhaps ominously for Breivik, the Daily Telegraph reported on 23 April that at “2.43pm The judge has read to the court comments from the Norwegian commission for forensic medicine, which has asked for “further work” to be done on the second psychiatric report into Breivik. This is the report which found he was sane.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)..
If this were an English court it is difficult to see how Breivik could meet the test of insanity required by the McNaghten Rules. These rest on whether a person accused of a crime knew they were doing something wrong or were suffering a defect of reason through mental illness, most commonly paranoia, which drove them to commit the crime in the belief that it was necessary to commit it , most probably because of a belief that they or someone else was in danger. Clearly Breivik is aware of what he was doing and how it would be viewed by society. That leaves only the question of whether he was acting under a delusion. That test would fall because manifestly what he fears, the objective threats to his society from mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness and Islam, are concrete facts. How far they could be judged to be mortal threats is another matter, but no one could reasonably argue that, in particular, mass immigration and Islam are not real and substantial threats to the nature of Norwegian society.
Compare the political positions of Breivik and the politically correct:
Breivik points out the inevitable ill consequences of mass immigration; the particular threat from Islam and the enforcement of the totalitarian ideology political correctness.
The politically correct ask human beings to pretend that that there is no difference between people of varying races and cultures; to willingly allow the invasion of their territory by strangers; pretend that life is enriched by changing from a homogenous to a fractured heterogeneous society through mass immigration; accept all sexual relationships as equally natural and socially useful and ignore the very obvious differences in interests and biological function between men and women in the name of sexual equality. The ideology requires people to behave as if they were not human.
Who is more divorced from reality?
How bright is Breivik? We are not talking Immanuel Kant here, but neither is he a complete clod. His 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence lists his concerns and programme for action as:
1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began
3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades
5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts
The complete manifesto can be found athttp://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf.
There are aspects of the ridiculous about his ideas, most notably the guff about the foundation of a latterday Knight’s Templars of which he describes himself as “ Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement” and his truly embarrassing obsession with uniforms. Breivik also shows great obtuseness in thinking that a political manifesto of 1,518 pages is a practical instrument to get his message across to a wide public, which was presumably his intent. To the length of his writing can be added the barrier of the quasi-academic style of much of the content. This prolixity and user-unfriendly style is unsurprising, because he appears to be an autodidact and an inability to understand an audience or edit out the marginal from the directly pertinent often comes with that territory. But that does not make what he has to say unimportant merely difficult to access.
In his manifesto Breivik is overly obsessed with Islam, although interestingly, in his statement to the court it is reported that: “09.32am The statement makes no reference to his crimes, his belief he is a Knight Templar, or, interestingly Islam. Instead, it’s a rant against left-wing multi-culturalism.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).
The threat to Norwegian society posed by Islam is not to be underestimated, but it is a subset of the larger general threat from immigration generally, especially in countries other than Norway. It could be argued that if it was only Muslims which constituted a threat, then the danger might be both better appreciated and more easily dealt with, because it is only the multiplicity of competing ethnicities which allows multiculturalism – a classic divide and rule strategy – to be peddled. (The same applies to the entirety of political correctness, because that also relies on creating sectional groups who can be similarly manipulated ).
Nonetheless, it is true that Islam represents the most coherent, immediate and obvious threat from immigrants in Europe because of the numbers involved – estimates of Muslims in the EU are around 20 million – (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html) and the nature of the religion itself which provides plenty of unambiguous injunctions to use force against non-Muslims to enforce Islam and is generally implacable in its drive towards domination. In judging Breivik’s fears they should be put in the context of the fact that Norway has a population of less than 5 million (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/). Mass immigration is a vastly more pressing matter for Norwegians than it is for a country with a population of, say, 50 million or more.
How many Muslims are there in Norway? No one knows for sure because the Norwegian statistics office does not count people by religion. Estimates by non-governmental bodies give figures such as 144,000 in 2010 (http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/) and 163,000 in 2009 (Islam in Norway http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/IslamiNorge.html .) These figures would not seem unreasonable when placed against the Statistics Norway 2010 figure for first and second generation immigrants:
“Immigrants and those born in Norway to immigrant parents constitute 655 000 persons or 13.1 per cent of Norway’s population, among which 547 000 are immigrants and 108 000 are born in Norway to immigrant parents.
Broken down by region, 294 000 have a European background, 163 000 persons have a background from Asia, 60 000 from Africa, 18 000 from South- and Central-America and 11 000 from North America and Oceania.
57 100 of those born in Norway to immigrants parents have an Asian background, 29 000 have parents from Europe, 19 500 from Africa and 2 600 have immigrant parents from South- and Central America. “http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/
It would be a fair bet that the large majority of the Asians are Muslims.
Despite these substantial shortcomings, Breivik’s message is most powerful and (for liberals) a tremendously dangerous. He strikes directly at the social poison which lies at the heart of not only Norway but much of the First World: the pernicious consequences of mass immigration and the ideological justification for it – multiculturalism – which Western elites have developed to justify both the immigration and the authoritarian measures employed to prevent public dissent at its permitting. In addition, by condemning political correctness generally he strikes at the other sacred cows of political correctness , gay rights and feminism. If Breivik is widely judged to be right in his core views (not his actions) the immense edifice of political correctness erected in in Norway (and elsewhere) over the past half century is under threat.
The eternal crime of treason
Most deadly for the liberal elite is Breivik’s attack on mass immigration. He is accusing the Norwegian elite of collective and sustained act of treason which he believes will obliterate Norway as a recognisable nation
The idea of treason is so potent because it is one of very few crimes which exists in people’s minds regardless of whether a law enshrining it is on the statute book. Indeed, it could be argued that it is the only crime which commands such universality of natural recognition because even crimes such as murder and theft are open to considerable differences of definition for example, killing by vendetta has been morally sanctioned in many societies and theft by conquest lauded. But treason is always treason, the betrayal of the tribe, clan or nation. It is even more fundamental than that, because its roots rest in the anger and dismay felt by any human being if they are let down by another whom they trusted.
A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a country and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice (and increasingly in theory) , and the coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under threat – see http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/what-is-treason-today/)
Liberals have been conditioned to eschew a sense of nation. Breivik has not. Here he is explaining why he wept at his trial when watching one of his videos :
“Because my country is in the process of dying – it was the sorrow over seeing my country … deconstructed. Especially the songs, combined with the message” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9210659/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-three-live.html).
There will be few in the West who will espouse Breivik’s actions but many who will in varying degrees sympathise at some level with his complaints about mass immigration, the demands of Muslims within Western societies and the strangling of human nature by political correctness. A good parallel for British readers is the relationship between Irish nationalists and the actions of the IRA. Support for the IRA varied from outright glorification of terrorist acts to those who adopted what might the called the “I don’t agree with their methods but… ” approach whereby they supported the ends but not the means.
What liberals everywhere should be doing is questioning why the imposition of their political ideology could drive someone to do what Breivik did. Such massacres are rare to the point of almost non-existence in modern Western society. The only real parallel is the bombing of government offices carried out by Timothy McVeigh in the USA (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-oslo-massacre-and-the-treason-of-the-liberals/) .
In both cases the perpetrators – Breivik and McVeigh – were men who lived in societies which provided for their material needs. They were not driven to do what they did by poverty. They were not fighting against an occupying power or an overt dictatorship. Both men could have continued to live what, by the standard of most places in the world , were extremely comfortable lives. Yet both chose to leave that security and engage in acts which by any standard were wholly exceptional and deeply disturbing. Moreover, the acts are disturbing not just for the slaughter which occurred, but also for their causes.
Norwegians who buy into the multicultural, politically correct propaganda which has been pumped out for decades ought to be examining the type of world their rigid adherence to political correctness has created. It has produced the sense of social claustrophobia common to overt totalitarian states whereby people find the range of opinion they are permitted shrinks and shrinks and instead of behaving naturally they are constantly thinking is it safe to say this? It is a mental gaol. Breivik described the symptoms graphically:
“09.46am I’m not scared of the prospect of being imprisoned. I was born in a prison and I have spent my life in a prison… this prison is called Norway. It doesn’t matter if I am locked into a cell, because you know that all areas will end up in a multicultural Hell that we call Oslo.“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).
Above all liberals need to ask themselves why, if Breivik’s ideas are so absurd, so outlandish they are afraid of them. The poet John Milton had the answer to those who wished to censor:
‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].
If Breivik is as irrational and delusional as liberals wish to make out, and liberals believe sincerely in what they say, they would surely let their perceived truth go into battle with Breivik’s perceived truth. The reality is that liberals at best do not think that their ideas are practical or palatable to the majority at present and at worst they have ceased to believe in political correctness but cannot say so for fear of the consequences to themselves.
A sociologist and professor at Oslo university, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, has been called to give evidence for Breivik. He has yet to give evidence but in the, to English eyes, rather curious world of Norwegian criminal justice, he has spoken to the media about his coming evidence (there appears to be little if any concept of sub judice in Norway) :
“I expect that they want me to help them substantiate the claim that he was not insane, what I can say is that his world view, or large parts of his world view are fairly widely shared… And this world view exists, not shared by a majority but by a fairly vocal and potentially dangerous minority,” Eriksen said.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9211988/Anders-Breivik-unable-to-distinguish-reality-says-professor.html).
There you have a liberal coming as close as they are likely to get to an admission of what they all fear: that Breivik’s views (although not his actions) are shared by large numbers of people, especially his views on immigration and Islam. Prof Eriksen is wrong in one respect: it is not a “dangerous minority” but humans generally who have these feelings, including, as mentioned previously, liberals. People may have been brainwashed but that does not means normal human instincts have vanished or that people generally believe in the propaganda. Instead people develop a fear response which drives them to shun views which clash with the ideology and to give evidence of their belief in the ideology in public situations by paying lip service to it.
While an ideology can be enforced, the public will display behaviours ranging from a servile adherence to the ideology to promote their interests to lip service just to remain safe. But once the means of enforcing the ideology are removed these behaviours will rapidly vanish. The societies liberals have built in the West are houses of cards just waiting to be knocked over if the stranglehold of the politically correct can be broken.
I will end with a question, What is the non-violent means to break the hold on power of elites who would destroy the societies they come from through mass immigration, obsessively enforce political correctness and ruthlessly suppress dissent to what they are doing through the criminalisation of ideas which run counter to those of the politically correct?