Another instant celebrity in the age of the jaded media consumer:
Breivik, a 32-year-old who contends he is waging a Christian crusade against multiculturalism in Europe, believes the killings were “gruesome” but “necessary,” said his attorney, Geir Lippestad….
His diary is part of a 1,500-page manifesto that Breivik admits posting on the Internet, Lippestad says. Part history, part commentary, part how-to manual, it lays out his loathing of Islam and his determination to preserve a Christian Europe. It is written in English, a language Scandinavians often turn to when trying to reach the broadest possible audience. The Norwegian newspaper VG has reported that sections of it were lifted from the manifesto of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber.
Breivik, like Kaczynski, was not of below-average intelligence. His methodical planning and implementation, his apparent mastery of a second language (English), and his prior understanding of the consequences demonstrate that. And whereas he might end up being considered insane insofar as his ideal of society and his methods of correction are out of step with the majority in Norway, he is not insane in the sense of having a distorted perception of material reality, nor in his expectations of how people would react to his behavior.
Interestingly, this event offers more proof that a peace-loving, law-abiding society of individualist liberals cannot survive without continuous, direct, totalitarian police supervision. After Breivik had slaughtered over 90 people for an hour, the police arrived to save the day:
In a country with a proud seafaring tradition, the elite police unit was stranded on shore. Finally, Berg and others took the SWAT team to the island in their own motorboats. They landed at 6:25, well over an hour after the shooting began. Breivik was arrested without incident two minutes later. Police officers fired no shots.
On the question of how this illustrates the dangers of multiculturalism: that is mainly an issue of how political leaders fail at imposing unpopular ideas upon the populace. That problem is a universally acknowledged issue for all politicians. In fact, I would say that one of the purposes of politics is to determine the best method of imposing unpopular policies (other purposes may include determining which policies are best, as in most feasible or most just). Government, by contrast, is a managerial function that implements established policies.
It came as stunning news that Norway had been attacked by a blond, blue-eyed, anti-Islamic terrorist. It should not have been: Several of us who have written about the rise of Islam in Europe have warned that the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the attendant challenges would result in the emergence of extremists like Breivik….
In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labor Party, Norway’s dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe—and thus guilty of treason.
However, deriving a policy from this event requires one to assume that most of the population are morons who will form a murderous mob at a moment’s notice, such that they cannot be trusted with political influence; while a certain minority are intelligent and potentially dangerous, such that one should never do anything to cross them. This is, in fact, the “Tea Party” platform.
Therefore, the logical requirement is to have a tyranny that suppresses the masses and favors the intelligent and dangerous minority. It has proven successful occasionally, as in apartheid South Africa, British colonial India, Spanish colonial Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq, and Soviet Russia. While such a society would undoubtedly be very stable in the short term, it would be subject to criticism by self-righteous democratic republics.