March 25, 2017

July 25, 2011


Is The Oslo Gunman Really Right Wing?

Self-labeling does not necessarily make it so.  Read it here. 

It matters not whether he was right, left or center when it comes to offering prayers for those who have been touched by this tragedy.  Please remember them in your prayers. 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

38 comments

Only if you need to sell newspapers or commercial time. As you know the information on facebook should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.
Intercessor

[1] Posted by Intercessor on 7-25-2011 at 01:34 PM · [top]

In my opinion and that of others the FB page or at least much of it is a fake. 
As to labeling him “right wing.”
The thing is that much of the writing in the manifesto is spot on in its analysis of Islam, the threat posed to Western culture and democratic systems of government by multiculturalism and by Marxism and their sympathizers. There is little evidence in the first 800 or so pages that this is guy who would become so radicalized he would shoot up and blow up innocent people.

He strongly defends and argues in favor of the constitutional rights we enjoy in the United States. He rejects Nazism and other “hateful” ideologies. He shows understandable alarm at the loss of freedoms in the name of tolerance. None of these would be foreign to conservative philosophy. You can tell he researched his subject very well and the argument he presents in favor of protecting Western culture is one I would not fault.

However later in the manifesto he starts getting more heavily into a ultra nationalist argument with comparisons to Custer and Sitting Bull (he sees himself as a Sitting Bull against the Custer of Islam) and you can see a growing acceptance of armed resistance and action to reach his goals. When he starts his Templar Knights I think it is a safe bet to say he went off the rails big time.

The point being he was right about many things but for whatever reason he failed to grasp that the crimes he committed were the complete antithesis of the philosophy he claimed to believe.

One of the ideals Western culture rests on is the ideal of being a system of laws not of men. His crimes went against that 100%.

[2] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-25-2011 at 03:33 PM · [top]

Norway has compulsory military service, so Breivik is likely to have had some military experience.  Nevertheless the degree of calculated planning down to dressing as a policeman to lure victims, setting up a bombing as a diversionary tactic, building a bomb and selecting an island which would be hard for the authorities to access, and hard for victims to escape from, combined with getting access to firearms, dumdum bullets, police uniforms and so on unfortunately means that one can’t discount a number of others working with him planning and resourcing this attack and who may represent a further threat.

[3] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 7-25-2011 at 09:30 PM · [top]

This was far too complicated for one man to plan and execute.  Is there Norwegian ultra-nationalism at work here?  Possibly.

[4] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-25-2011 at 09:59 PM · [top]

The thing is that much of the writing in the manifesto is spot on in its analysis of Islam, the threat posed to Western culture and democratic systems of government by multiculturalism and by Marxism and their sympathizers. There is little evidence in the first 800 or so pages that this is guy who would become so radicalized he would shoot up and blow up innocent people.

He was out to destroy the next generation of left-leaning multiculturalist politicians - that’s why he targeted the Norwegian Labour Party youth camp on the island. It was a very horrific, but political act.

[5] Posted by Derek Smith on 7-25-2011 at 10:38 PM · [top]

The Norwegian Labour Party may have its faults, to be sure, but this maniac only made things worse for his point of view, and it will only turn Norwegians….and everyone else in Scandinavia….against him and his ilk.  There is no excuse for mass murder such as this, and I hope the courts deal severely with Breivik….as I’m sure they will.

[6] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-25-2011 at 10:55 PM · [top]

I read someplace that at most he is facing 21 years in prison if convicted.  Wish I could recall where I got that information.

[7] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-26-2011 at 12:35 AM · [top]

[8] Posted by Robert Lundy on 7-26-2011 at 07:37 AM · [top]

Paula, my husband also heard that about his possible sentence. It seems that Norway has neither the death penalty nor life sentences nor consecutive sentences. So what it amounts to is that after the first murder, the rest were free.

[9] Posted by Nellie on 7-26-2011 at 08:13 AM · [top]

So President (then candidate) Obama called for a citizen group larger than the armed forces to implement his agenda and he is not labeled right-wing???? Oh how I yearn for consistency in the world-wide press.

[10] Posted by Festivus on 7-26-2011 at 08:30 AM · [top]

Regarding #7 and #9 - IIUC, both points are correct.  Maximum sentence for anything in Norway is 21 years.  However, “dangerous criminals” can apparently be incarcerated for a further 20 years rather than being released (and that I believe can be done more than once).  While not a guarantee (and if someone does actually know something about Norweigian law please correct me if I am wrong), it would be possible to spend the rest of ones natural life in prison in Norway.  It might be akin to Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan periodically coming up before the parole board in California and being denied release, though in Norway it may work out to having Breivik being repeatedly being “sent back” to prison for 20 years at a time rather than being released.

[11] Posted by Reformed Wanderer on 7-26-2011 at 08:40 AM · [top]

#8 Robert Lundy,

Gasp.

That might be a topic for another thread.

[12] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 7-26-2011 at 09:03 AM · [top]

Let’s face it if the death of 70+ people by a supposed right wing Christian deluded killer means Christianity as a whole is now lethal how does that compare to the deaths of millions at the hands of Marxists, Socialists, Communists and other Leftist kith and kin?

Frankly it seems Christianity is made up of a bunch of rank amateurs when it comes to using their beliefs as a basis for mass killings of innocent people.  Probably because one has to go against Christian teaching to accomplish that goal whereas such killings by infamous Socialist regimes were justified under the necessity to bing about a new pure society.

Kind of like the justification given by Breviek for his crimes.  Christianity is not an “the ends justify the means” religion.  That belief is the rallying cry of political fanaticism.

[13] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-26-2011 at 09:38 AM · [top]

[8] Robert Lundy

I wouldn’t worry too much about the multicultural opinions expressed in the WaPo article.  That world view is weak and getting weaker.  It is far too obsessed with its own happiness to sustain itself.  The only thing that presently keeps it going it is prosperity.  But it’s too weak to reproduce itself, and it’s too weak to defend itself.  Fat rich weak things get eaten by strong hungry lean things in the real world. 

The problem is that it is hollowing out the spiritual core of the culture.  Any severe economic dislocation is going to shatter it like an egg dropped on concrete.  Then what?  What happens when people who believe in nothing but prosperity suddenly lose prosperity?  Imagines of Weimar should dance in your head right about now, because that is where I think the West is heading. 

A nation that is spiritually hollow is amazingly receptive to malignant ideas.  After all, what exists to restrain its appetite once the spiritual core is gone?  It seeks only to restore its former greatness and prosperity and it will want to fill that void. Once again we will hear “Die Straße frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann!” The “multiculturalist degenerates” will be hearded into camps and shot straight away.  But so will we.

I see the future, and it scares the hell out of me.

carl

[14] Posted by carl on 7-26-2011 at 12:07 PM · [top]

#14

I see the future, and it scares the hell out of me.

Is divination part of the permitted Calvinist skillset carl?

All this talk of this bloke being a Christian seems to come down to a comment of a Norwegian policeman and a few references to preserving the Christian heritage and culture [although not its faith] made by the murderer in relation to his aims.   

But he cuts a rather sad and damaged picture with his childhood in a broken home which is now coming out in the news.  It seemed to all be summed up by the comment of his estranged biological father who said he would have been better off dead.  Says a lot really.  Perhaps some of the anger and violence he felt towards his treatment by his family was transferred to a desire to fix society in place of his family through anger and violence.  What a mess.

[15] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 7-26-2011 at 12:25 PM · [top]

[15] Pageantmaster

Is divination part of the permitted Calvinist skillset carl?

No, but discernment is.  The shooter in Norway doesn’t mean much.  He is a sad killer who thought to build a speaker’s platform out of 100 dead bodies.  He imagines himself a martyr for a cause - a great leader who will inspire millions to follow.  He is just a solitary killer.  Likewise, the bleating by liberals about ‘Christian extremism’ doesn’t mean much.  The culture they have built is too weak to keep going, and is already expending itself.  Beside, in the end these liberals don’t have the courage to pull the trigger.  They can make your life uncomfortable.  They aren’t lethal in that manner.

No, the problem is what comes next.  Don’t fear the man cleansed of a demon.  Fear the man when the demon returns with seven others.  The West is hollow right now - spiritually empty.  It is waiting for the seven demons to return.  Comes the economic trauma, and the West will positively cry out for them to return.  And return they will - with a vengeance. 

carl

[16] Posted by carl on 7-26-2011 at 12:50 PM · [top]

My goodness, carl the soothsayer, I do hope not, at least not at the moment.

[17] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 7-26-2011 at 12:56 PM · [top]

I fear Carl is right here.  The European Union has been working hard to kill off its moral foundations (read Christianity) for years.  I try to tell my liberal friends that Magnificat theology (upholding the poor and powerless over the rich and powerful) is not automatic; indeed once you get rid of the restraint of widespread Christianity, we’re heading right back into paganism and anarchy.  As Lesslie Newbigin points out, if schools are teaching that “survival of the fittest” is the natural way of the world, and also trying to teach the “value” of deferring to the weak, the contradiction will eventually become apparent.

[18] Posted by John Boyland on 7-26-2011 at 02:59 PM · [top]

A nation that is spiritually hollow is amazingly receptive to malignant ideas.

Yes, but I think you can judge how it will go wrong based on what was there before. Germany in the decades before WWII was jingoistic: you could see the direction they’d head once the egg hit the concrete.

But the dominant force now seems to be the secular left, as exemplified by the wapo author. I don’t see why you’re so sanguine that a group as powerful and entrenched as that (having introduced their ideas for decades now through the media and the education system) will just be brushed aside. Rather, they indicate the type of monster this society will mutate into, if the egg eventually does hit.

[19] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-26-2011 at 07:19 PM · [top]

[19] SpongJohn SquarePantheist

I don’t see why you’re so sanguine that a group as powerful and entrenched as that (having introduced their ideas for decades now through the media and the education system) will just be brushed aside.

1. Because they will be blamed for the decline.
2. Because they won’t have any answers.
3. Because this is going to intersect with fear over Islamic immigration into Europe.
4. Because they aren’t ruthless enough to survive. 

The Russian revolution was chock full of academics and intellectuals until about the mid-20’s.  They were debating amongst themselves, and writing papers, and thinking great thoughts about socialism, and (ostensibly) being the Vanguard of the Proletariat.  Then Stalin had them all shot. 

carl

[20] Posted by carl on 7-26-2011 at 07:34 PM · [top]

The operative piece of data here is that Mr. Breivik is a murderer.  A mass murderer.  A terrorist.

His attorney says he is insane.  Makes sense to me.  How could a sane person, a really sane person, knowingly and callously murder some 80 innocent people claiming to be serving some cause, right or left?  The haste to label him a right-winger demonstrates that he did not further the cause attributed to him; his actions are being used to discredit that cause.  Can an insane person really be right-wing or left-wing?

If an insane person murders, does it matter whether he mutters left-ist or right-ist slogans?  The operative data is that he is a murderer.  A mass murderer.  A terrorist.

Was Usama bin Laden a leftist?  A rightist?  Surely a murderer for having planned, funded and directed execution of the 9/11 murders and many others.  Is his successor, al-Zawahiri, a right-wing extremist or a left-wing extremist?

Too long incipient resistance to deficit spending, entitlements, abortions, same sex marriage, individualistic interpretations of the scriptures, of what is right and what is wrong, and a long list of other wrongs, is emerging, albeit frustratingly slowly, into informed, active and moral Christian, God-fearing resistance.  I am optimistic.  Christianity will not fail.  The Church, Christ’s Church, will not fail.  The United States will not fail.  But evil will not be conquered until Christ returns.

I pray for the souls of the murdered, I pray for their families and I pray for everyone, in Norway and elsewhere, whose sense of security and internal peace has been fractured by this horrible event.

God bless.

[21] Posted by Ol' Bob on 7-26-2011 at 07:50 PM · [top]

Then Stalin had them all shot.

The term for such types was “useful idiot” as I recall, at least in the Western world.

[22] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 7-26-2011 at 07:51 PM · [top]

#20 Carl, I’ll grant you your first 3 reasons, but I’m not sure about #4. They’ve shown themselves capable of quite a bit of ruthlessness, more than enough to survive.

[23] Posted by billqs on 7-27-2011 at 10:02 AM · [top]

#21 Ol’ Bob

His attorney says he is insane.

His attorney would, as would many attorneys, faced with a client in this predicament.  It saves him and everyone else from dealing with a man who acting deliberately and with intentional cunning and years of preparation, committed these acts, and who when found guilty would be sentenced accordingly.  With a plea of insanity, it avoids all those difficult questions, and the mandatory sentence [extreme in some countries] which would follow.  It also gives rise to the possibility that in future, he would be found to have been ‘cured’ and no longer a threat to others, and so open to release in some form back into the community.

A finding of insanity, also absolves the rest of us from really getting to grips with how this man came to commit the acts he did.  I don’t think McVeigh was insane, nor bin Laden, nor Pol Pot and although it is a matter of medical evidence, I would be surprised if Breivik is.

[24] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 7-27-2011 at 11:59 AM · [top]

You know, I’m not convinced that Breivik is insane.  I don’t necessarily think that Usama bin Laden was insane, that Stalin was insane, Hitler, Lenin or most of history’s other succesful murderers.

The guy was had a cause he believed in more strongly than anything else, one he was willing to kill and be killed for.  He was a politically motivated activist.  He had those he percieved as enemies of his people (Marxists, socialists, liberal Protestants, homosexuals, feminists, abortionists, multiculturalists…) that were turning the West into a hollow, week culture unable to withstand the coming Muslin onslaught.  He drew inspiration from websites like Jihad Watch.  He worried about the demographic decline of Europe.  To make a long story short, he expressed many of the same concerns about the supposed decline of the West in the face of liberalism and Islam that I see in posts on blogs like this every day.  Recently Red State made a very clumsy attempt to credit his actions to a liberal environmentalist culture of death that says that aborition is the answer to ecological concerns.  It wasn’t too hard for someone to throw back at them Breivik’s own condemnation of abortion. 

I don’t think it is enough to dismiss his an insane, an outlier, or a murder.  I think it is our responsiblity to define, to express, to advocate exactly what it is that make us different from people like him.  Especially when so many American conservatives like to casually bandy around talk about “2nd Amendment solutions” to our political problems or draw comparisons between our current state of affairs and the events (such as *cough cough* the Boston Tea Party) that led to the American Revolution.

[25] Posted by AndrewA on 7-27-2011 at 12:13 PM · [top]

Pageantmaster (#24) and AndrewA (#25),

It was not my intent to diminish Breivik’s culpability.  I did not intend to use “insane” in the legal sense.  That said, it seems to me that anyone doing what he did likely has a mind functioning differently, in an abnormal way, with normal intended to mean not like most others.

Different earthly jurisdictions would treat him differently.  I probably would disagree with any which would not deal with him in such a way as to ensure that he will never have the opportunity to do it again.  He ultimately stands accountable to God.

God bless.

[26] Posted by Ol' Bob on 7-27-2011 at 12:43 PM · [top]

carl, if you ever start a website “carl’s cheerful inspirational thought for the day”, please let us know.

[27] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-27-2011 at 01:21 PM · [top]

I think that a consideration is to be made here.  There is a fallacy in place assuming that all “Right Wingers” are ostensibly Christian.  To this point, let’s remember Eric Rudolph, the Olympic/Abortion clinic bomber who was active in 1996-97.  The media was quick to tar Christians with the blame for these crimes.  Rudolph, by his own admission was a materialist who was at best, agnostic.  He didn’t consider the abortionists and Gay community “sinful” as much as he considered them to be a blight to be removed.  Breivik too, in his manifesto, espouses a materialistic worldview. 

His crimes seem to be far more rooted in the desire to see the a return to a pure (read caucasian) greater Europe and Norway.

[28] Posted by aterry on 7-27-2011 at 01:38 PM · [top]

SpongJohn:

But the dominant force now seems to be the secular left, as exemplified by the wapo author.

I don’t know what Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite’s politics are, but she’s been an ordained minister in the UCC for thirty-five years, so I don’t understand why you describe her as secular?

[29] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 7-27-2011 at 01:56 PM · [top]

[27] SpongJohn SquarePantheist

I can be cheerful and inspirational.  How about “Things aren’t as wretched as they could be.”  Or perhaps “Misery achieves the development of character”  See?  Cheerful.  Inspirational.

carl
Who loves Alice and her ‘Fist ... of ... Death!”

[30] Posted by carl on 7-27-2011 at 03:47 PM · [top]

“ordained minister in the UCC for thirty-five years, so I don’t understand why you describe her as secular?”

Pretty much self explanatory.

[31] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-27-2011 at 03:55 PM · [top]

#29, #31 yes, the UCC is a faux denomination. The atheist Dan Barker once joked that if you were an atheist but wanted to get into politics, you should join the UU as “cover”. The UCC is pretty much the same thing. They take a small intersection of concerns that Christianity has in common with secularism, exclude anything else that is specifically Christian (such as anything transcendant or supernatural), and thus do a bait and switch, dressing up secular activism as Christianity, as if that’s all Christianity was.

[32] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-27-2011 at 04:06 PM · [top]

As if to prove my point: Obama is UCC. This is the sort of thing that goes on in his administration:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27622/

[33] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-27-2011 at 04:13 PM · [top]

Ah, OK, thanks. Forgive me for not knowing which Christian denominations you regard as faux/secular/heretical.

[34] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 7-27-2011 at 05:13 PM · [top]

In response to various posts:

“His attorney would, as would many attorneys, faced with a client in this predicament.  It saves him and everyone else from dealing with a man who acting deliberately and with intentional cunning and years of preparation, committed these acts, and who when found guilty would be sentenced accordingly.”

In fairness, the attorney has to present his client’s case as well as it can ethically be represented. I doubt that “saving himself from dealing with the man” even enters into the attorney’s thinking - he HAS to deal with the man, close up and personal, and he has to set his own feelings aside.

Insanity, yeah he’s duty bound to explore the issue. But I don’t see how it can wash. To put it colloquially, this guy was bad, not mad.

“I think that a consideration is to be made here.  There is a fallacy in place assuming that all “Right Wingers” are ostensibly Christian.”

I agree, it is a total fallacy. There is nothing remotely Christian about this chap. This is just another example of aggressive secular humanist journalists acting in a totally unprincipled manner.

For example, the last post this guy made on twitter is supposed to have been a reference to John Stuart Mill. On that basis, he should be labelled a liberal humanist! The truth is, he adopted whatever bits from everyone’s philosophy pleased him.

“Ah, OK, thanks. Forgive me for not knowing which Christian denominations you regard as faux/secular/heretical.”

I appreciate that there may be a side debate going on about denominations, but I just want to emphasise that they are irrelevant to the issue of this gunman.

[35] Posted by MichaelA on 7-27-2011 at 08:19 PM · [top]

Just to clarify, my last post was not a rebuke aimed at Gnu (or anyone else) but a comment on a broader issue.

[36] Posted by MichaelA on 7-27-2011 at 08:26 PM · [top]

Excellent quote, Fr Matt. Thank you.

I suspect if you mine this fellow’s wrtings long enough you will be able to “prove” he was anything you like, from far left to far right and everything in between.

[38] Posted by MichaelA on 8-1-2011 at 05:27 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.