Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | July 25, 2011

Anders Breivik, post-modern Crusader

Sometimes the life of a blogger is fraught with tedium and annoyance.  It can also be touched simultaneously by profound sadness.  I’ve been steeping in a brew concocted from these ingredients, perusing the 1518-page “2083” manifesto of the Norwegian mass murderer so you don’t have to.

As My Pet Jawa reports, parts of “2083” were copied from the Unabomber’s manifesto.  But that gives a very incomplete impression of what makes this guy tick.  The overarching theme of “2083” is that he, and his confreres in the “PCCTS Knights Templar,” are modern-day Crusaders.  They are not what most other Christians would call Christian; Anders is very explicit that having a relationship with Jesus Christ is not his thing.  He’s a “cultural” Christian, and the PCCTS Knights Templar (expansion of PCCTS below) are happy to accept members who are, in Breivik’s words, “Christian agnostics” and “Christian atheists.”  He uses “Christian” as a modifier signifying primarily Western/European cultural identity; he does speak of brotherhood with African and Asian Christians, but the context of the references is clearly cultural.

Tellingly, there is not one reference in “2083” to the power of spiritual Christianity deriving from the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  For spiritual Christians, that’s the bottom line.  It’s what you say, what you talk about, your confession of faith.  Breivik doesn’t allude to it at all.  Again, it’s not his thing.  He doesn’t think of Christianity as transforming hearts and lives for the better.  He thinks of it as a positive, unifying symbol-set, one that evokes the energy, reason, and strength of the traditional culture of Europe.

Here are his words:

3.139 Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom – reforming our suicidal Church

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. (p. 1307)

And this:

I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;

“Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.”

Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… (p. 1344)

And this:

If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practising Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (cultural Christian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit.

Choosing to fight under the banner of the cross, does not constitute that you have to reject your Odinistic heritage in any way or form.

As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons.

As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;

– That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage.

The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority).

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).

The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order.

(C)reating a religious order would be counter-productive as a majority of Europe’s armed resistance fighters are agnostics, atheists or relatively secular Christians. The organisation is therefore considered a moderate Christian identity organisation and not a religious order. (p. 1360-on)

Predictably, Breivik invokes the Nietzschean complaint that Christianity is too weak and self-effacing for its own good:

The Judeo-Christian religions played an important and influential role in building the once mighty West but we also discovered that these religions contained a serious flaw that has sewed the seeds of the suicidal demise of the indigenous peoples of Western Europe and our cultures. This flaw was identified by the brilliant German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who described it as “an inversion of morality” whereby the weak, the poor, the meek, the oppressed and the wretched are virtuous and blessed by God whereas the strong, the wealthy, the noble and the powerful are the immoral and damned by the vengeful almighty Yahweh for eternity.

Nietzsche, with great insight and perception, stated that Christianity would be abandoned en masse in the twentieth century but that Westerners would still cling to this inversion of morality. I then described how Marxists and Liberals exploit this inversion of morality by creating large numbers of “victim groups“, groups who form minorities in Western society but whose “victim status” is used to dictate morality to the majority. In Western – European – societies, the weak now lead the strong, indeed, the game being played in these societies is not to make the weak strong it is to make the strong weak. (p. 391)

But he despises National Socialists (referred to by the initials NS throughout the text) and has only negative things to say about Hitler.  In fact, Breivik devotes pages to arguing against the Nazi perspective on cultural unity and power.  Breivik’s unifying idea and symbology are the Crusades and the Knights Templar.  What he wants Christian Europe (and indeed, all Christendom) to get back to is his concept of the church militant in the Crusades era:  a church that forms the cultural core of society and motivates the people to – if you will – defend Christianity forward.  His plan for a revitalized cultural-Christian Europe involves reclaiming Lebanon for Christianity (yes, this figures very large in the manifesto), supporting Christians in Africa and Asia in driving Muslims and cultural relativists out of their lands, and helping Israeli Jews build the Third Temple in Jerusalem.

All his concepts are political and militant.  He advocates holding a “Great Christian Congress” (p. 1136) at which the new Knights Templar-based authorities of Europe reorganize the church for its own good.  Protestantism has been an unmitigated disaster, and needs to be winnowed out.  (Breivik was baptized a Protestant but admires the political history, ritual, organization, and aesthetics of the Catholic Church.)  The church will be assigned in his restored cultural order to a number of tasks, and given some important powers, but one thing it will not have is the autonomy to evolve away from his militant ideal for it.

The PCCTS Knights Templar are named after the original Knights Templar: the “Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici,” or Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.  An anonymous group of Europeans met in London in 2002 to re-found the order, and Breivik was present at the creation.  Its program for reclaiming Europe and the world is oriented on the year 2083, presumably because that year will mark the 400th anniversary of the Battle of Vienna.

And it is a warlike program, to say the least.  Cultural Marxists (e.g., the people he killed in the government offices), along with Muslims, will be given an ultimatum to embrace cultural Christianity by 1 January 2020, or be killed or driven out.  In the aftermath of the ultimatum, WMD will be used on them.  Breivik devotes pages of text to various methods of acquiring chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons:  from the existing governments of Europe, from crime syndicates, directly from Islamist states and terrorist groups (because why not?).

He justifies this bloodthirsty program on the basis of the indulgences granted to “all future Crusaders” by Pope Urban II in 1095; on the “duty to crusade” which he reads into the church’s canon law; and on the calls of subsequent popes to mount new crusades. (p. 1324)

Have I mentioned that Breivik is an avid player of World of Warcraft?  He reports taking an entire year off from paid employment to play it full time.  In this and other ways he is very much a product of modern Western culture – and that is where the profound sadness comes in.  He has reached the age of 32 with an obvious sense of rootlessness, a set of grievances against society (some of them justified), and no spiritual or emotional defenses against resorting to a kinetic Manichaeism in his approach to politics and life.  Here is part of his account of his teenage years in Oslo:

We used to hang out with GSV crew, or B-Gjengen as they are popularly called today, a Muslim Pakistani gang, quite violent even back then. “Gang alliances” was a part of our everyday life at that point and assured that you avoided threats and harassment. Alliances with the right people guaranteed safe passage everywhere without the risk of being subdued and robbed (Jizya), beaten or harassed. We had close ties with B-Gjengen (B-Gang) and A-Gjengen (A-Gang), both Muslim Pakistani gangs through my best friend Arsalan who was also a Pakistani. Even at that time, the Muslim gangs were very dominating in Oslo East and in inner city Oslo. They even arranged “raids” in Oslo West occasionally, subduing the native youths (kuffars) and collecting Jizya from them (in the form of cell phones, cash, sunglasses etc.). I remember they systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations. Muslim youths called the ethnic Norwegians “poteter” (potatoes, a derogatory term used by Muslims to describe ethnic Norwegians). These people occasionally raped the so called “potato whores”. In Oslo, as an ethnic Norwegian youth aged 14-18 you were restricted if you didn’t have affiliations to the Muslim gangs. Your travel was restricted to your own neighbourhoods in Oslo West and certain central points in the city. Unless you had Muslim contacts you could easily be subject to harassment, beatings and robbery. Our alliances with the Muslim gangs were strictly seen as a necessity for us, at least for me. We, however, due to our alliances had the freedom of movement. As a result of our alliances we were allowed to have a relaxing and secure position on the West side of Oslo among our age group. Think of it as being local “warlords” for certain “kuffar areas”, which were regulated by the only dominant force, Muslim gangs collaberating with anarcho-Marxist networks.

Many of these groups claim to be tolerant and anti-fascist, but yet, I have never met anyone as hypocritical, racist and fascist as the people whom I used to call friends and allies. The media glorifies them while they wreck havoc across the city, rob and plunder. Yet, any attempts their victims do to consolidate are harshly condemned by all aspects of the cultural establishment as racism and Nazism. I have witnessed the double standards and hypocrisy with my own eyes, it is hard to ignore. I was one of the protected “potatoes”, having friends and allies in the Jihadi-racist gangs such as the A and B gang and many other Muslim gangs.

I gradually became appalled by the mentality, actions and hypocrisy of what he calls the “Marxist-Jihadi youth” movement of Oslo disguised under more socially acceptable brands such as: “SOS Rasisme”, “Youth against Racism”, Blitz who literally hijacked segments of the hiphop movement and used it as a front for recruitment.

I have personally heard of and witnessed hundreds of Jihadi-racist attacks, more than 90% of them aimed at helpless Norwegian youth (who themselves are brought up to be “suicidally” tolerant and therefore are completely unprepared mentally for attacks such as these). This happens while the Marxist networks in the hiphop movement and the cultural establishment silently and indirectly condone it. There is absolutely no political will to ensure that justice is served on behalf of these victims. I remember at one point thinking; “This system makes me sick”.  (p. 1389)

Breivik’s complaint is that what he was supposed to believe in – who he was supposed to be, as a member of a culture – offered him no protection, safety, or dignity.  He goes on to recount, one by one, the occasions on which he was directly attacked or threatened in the years after he broke with his “gang alliances” (starting on p. 1393).  He also observes, matter-of-factly, that a natural-selection process kicked in after the mid-teenage years, when students are channeled into academic or technical/trades education.  The Muslim teens almost all went into vocational training (or left school entirely), which meant they and the ethnic Norwegians were no longer in the same schools, and no longer had to meet in the same neighborhoods.

The void where the reasons for cultural unity should be is a real source of sorrow here, at least for me.  Breivik blames it, in effect, on “cultural Marxism” (his cultural commentary is all derivative):  the process of tearing down the traditional shibboleths of a culture in order to leave populations mentally defenseless against collectivism.  And this isn’t invalid, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.  The problem for Europe isn’t so much what it no longer is, as that there is no compelling vision for what it ought to be.

That is most clearly apparent in the video Breivik posted to explain the “2083” concept.  One of the first things that struck me in watching the video was that it seemed curiously American in tone.  Breivik’s imagery for depicting the downfall of Europe includes thematic “traffic signs,” which of course are a universal phenomenon, but also shows the boy “Billy” from the Family Circus cartoon representing Europe – clearly as a fresh-faced, defenseless youth – and depicts the suicide of the West via a caricature of Uncle Sam with a pistol in his mouth.  In the text, at the inflection point of the video when it transitions from lament to a plan for the future, Breivik quotes Thomas Jefferson on the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Yet the “2083” manifesto is very Euro-centric.  It is not about the US, or the distinctly American political idea, and it deals with the Americas as a whole very little.  Breivik clearly sees Europe as having a meaningful identity of its own, but he can’t come up with an identifiably European image to convey that as a modern reality.  As the video crescendos, he harks back to the Middle Ages, lining up one image after another of armored knights in battle (or in heroic stances).  His hall of European fame is a series of military commanders who fought against Muslim armies in centuries past (the most recent being Czar Nicholas I in the 19th century).

These images are not compelling to conservatives in the US, and I don’t see any evidence that they are the organizing idea for classical-liberal thinkers or political parties in Europe.  There is literally no mainstream interest in refighting the Crusades or wrestling the church down and making her culturally militant on the model of the Middle Ages.  There is a varying level of political engagement among Christians:  some are very left-leaning, others are conservative (or liberal in the classical European sense), many of both kinds have little interest in politics, and others find politics important and rewarding.  Anders Breivik’s model of a post-modern Knight Templar resonates not at all with the actual beliefs and stances of conservatives, Christians, or conservative Christians.

That is partly because Breivik seeks a form of tribal symbology and validation that modern society has grown comparatively comfortable without.  Mainstream classical-liberalism in Europe doesn’t offer the mystical power of either Norse gods or a Latin-speaking church with its own army of knights.  These symbols of cultural connection to the transcendent haven’t been Christianity’s reality for centuries; and in politics, there has been a very long trend toward prosaic bureaucratic consultation, which no one envisions operating outside of.  There’s no way to torture modern Christianity or modern social or political conservatism into the Crusader mold – which is why Breivik had to find his calling elsewhere.

We can hope – I certainly do – that the flurry of mistargeted denunciations from the political left will die down quickly.  All you have to do to see that conservatives and Christians are not responsible for Anders Breivik is read 1500 pages of his musings.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor any particular religious denomination, political party, or school of thought in Europe, is “responsible” for Breivik; he did his own research and made his own choices, and he had alternatives.  He is undoubtedly not the only young European who wishes for a more compelling, inspiring, successful, and victorious cultural idea of Europe to give his life meaning.   But he is the only one who decided to blow up a building and go on a shooting rampage.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.



  1. Thank you for this article. The narrative is being established that Breivik is a Christian but, as this article points out, his own viewpoint was different. In fact, he might share his roots with the Nazis notwithstanding his denunciation of them.

    There is evidence that the occult is the explanation of the Nazis, although such explanation is abhorrent to most of the academic pan-intellectual crowd. Theosophy, runes, the Knight’s Templars, Nordic mythology, the idea of a Messiah, reincarnation, the idea wherein “Jehovah” was the younger and usurping brother of Lucifer and corrupted the strong with the weak religion of slaves, usurpers, Jews and Christians; Jews corrupted the original race of giants (Aryans) by mating with them, which, is a Muslim strategy: rape. (It should be no surprise to find the connections between Muslims and Nazis were/are strong. It should also be remembered that there were many more Nazis than Hitler who may or may not have been an avowed occultist. He did, however, use the techniques of hypnosis to enhance his speaking skills.)

    But most importantly, what seems to be the connection is the hatred against the rootlessness of a materialistic society moving towards a materialism that denies suprasensory reality.This isn’t merely heredity rootlessness but a complete and utter spiritual rootlessness and meaninglessness. Breivik’s massive involvement in the World of Warcraft is especially telling. The thousands of hours of play I interpret as self-hypnosis meant to steel oneself for a terrible task. In this, too, there is a mirror of being a Nazi, especially the SS which carried out the death camps and other torture and death: men of steel.

  2. I will return to your semi-coherent rant when I have more time. But on a quick glance one sentence stood out – “Cultural Marxists (e.g. the people he killed in the government offices)”
    The people he murdered in the government offices were public servants and people. In a nation where the public-service is politically neutral we have no idea of their political views. One thing is likely, given the tiny size of the Norwegian Communist Party, few if any were likely to have been Marxists – cultural or otherwise. But I do understand the mean-spirited point you were making (and chose to illustrate with reference to these dead people) when you used this turn of phrase. It wasn’t exactly “Christian” as I understand Christianity.

    Incidentally, we now know that this mass-murderer was an avid follower of extreme-rightwing US internet hate-sites. was one he frequently visited and commented on with approval. Whether this tells us anything significant about him – anymore than visiting Jihadist web-sitestells us anything usefull about Islamic extremists – I don’t know.

  3. Megatron thanks Paulite for a very good site which is manned by the redoubtable Frank Gafney.


    The tide is turning in Europe and elsewhere towards freedom, free markets and conservative values. To paraphrase an old folk song, we can’t let a psychopathic deviant – who professes admiration for such principles and their adherents, yet utterly betrays them – to turn us around.

    • Meg,
      wouldn’t mind seeing some evidence that Europe is going for free markets.

      I’ve not noticed that development.

      • Gaffney and his side-kick, Glick, don’t do evidence. They do unsupported claims and innuendo.

        Norway has a capitalist economy with free-markets. It also has a comprehensive welfare-state. It can afford the latter because it is hard-working and well-organized, and also because it has considerable oil-reserves in the North Sea. The right-wing Heritage Centre consistently rates Norway as among the most economically free nations on earth.

  4. There is no explanation for a madman. The sane always seem to need to find a particular touchstone to explain madness.
    The madman read this and went online to look at that. He believed this and discussed that. He agreed with this group and disagreed with that group.
    He is an un-balanced human being. There is no meaning to his rampage other than the horror the families will experience for the rest of their lives.
    Just a note to kick up a little dust. Just one competent person on that island with a gun (rifle) MAY have decreased the mortality rate of the young people who perished.
    No, I don’t own any guns what so ever.

    • To brand him a lone “madman” is a comforting fiction. Unfortunately, his “manifesto” is underpinned by a chilling logic, and is certainly rather more coherent that the Opticon’s comment. However, insofar as few people of any race or creed will ever find reason to kill another human being, he is mad – or at least non-normal. The uncomfortable facts is that less more than the 9/11 bombers, this guy is clinically sane and responsible for his actions. The Moslem army-psychologist who killed several of comrades also probably acted alone. He is also responsible for his actions however extreme his views. Extremism and insanity are two separate things.

      One common factor seemingly shared by all these supposedly lone terrorists is that they cruise the extreme blogosphere for reinforcement of their views and moral support. As we have seen in this instance, and in the case of killers who have cited Islam as their cause, they are not short of choice when it comes to finding views which are sympathetic to their own. How many have actually being influenced in taking the path from expressions of hatred to murder by people such as Gaffney and his Islamic counterparts we will never know.

      • Lone does not appear in my comment. Madman is an apt description of someone who murders 84 innocent people.
        I live in Oklahoma City. I felt the the bomb. I heard the bomb. I smelled the death days and weeks later. I have friends that went to multiple funerals.
        The people that perpetrated the slaughter here were MADMEN. They were human waste.
        My point Paul, is “there is no comforting facts or reasons to reassure humanity or to make sense of horrible acts against un armed innocent human beings that are no threat to the Madman.”
        Perhaps the survivors and the families of the slain will appreciate the chilling logic of the gentlemans’ manifesto.

        Frank Gaffney made me do it. That is rich.
        Perhaps his last trip to Burger King made him do it.

        Perhaps your War and Peace length inconsistent non experienced diatribes made him do it. Regards.

        • I never said that Gaffney made him do it. Neither did I say that some over-heated ayatollah or Imam made the 9/11 murderers “do it”. Each of these killers, whether acting alone or in concert, was individually responsible for his or her actions.

          What I did say was that extremism and insanity are two different things. Neither is there any good evidence that McVeigh, the 9/11 murderers, Breivik, or any of the others were insane in the legal sense that they were not responsible for their actions.

          The other point I made (admittedly obliquely) was that sane people can be encouraged, emboldened, incited, and reinforced in extreme views they may hold, by the words of others. While I defend the right of free-expression, I also accept that there are those who abuse that right by fomenting hatred and fear. They are not of course legally responsible for their lies and incitement (the protection of free speech alows them a legal alibi). However, they have a moral culpability and deserve our scorn and disgust. I was expressing my disgust at both Islamic extremists and their mirror-image in the extreme-rightwing blogosphere.

          A final thought:- People like (Drs) Goebbles and Heydrich were not insane. They were educated, logical, and cooly calculating people who operated in an environment where groups of people had become systematically demonized. There is no record, so far as I am aware, of either of these people ever explicitly and publicly calling for the genocide of anyone. They (and the publications under their control) went about their business of demonization by obsessivly and unremittingly seeking out and printing negative stories about the people they wished to demonize. Once you have demonized a people or group it is always easy to find people to take the next step.

          • “They (and the publications under their control) went about their business of demonization by obsessivly and unremittingly seeking out and printing negative stories about the people they wished to demonize. Once you have demonized a people or group it is always easy to find people to take the next step.”

            Thats pretty much applicable to just about every publication that emanates from every major institution in the islamic world about not only the west, but Christians, Hindus, Jews and atheists. Its essentially all you will read in the vast majority of printed political material in Arabic from Beirut to Bali.

            You are a Kuffar to the vast majority of them Paulite. A useful Kuffar, but rest assured, in cafe’s and meeting halls and living rooms by the millions you are a Kuffar to the core.

  5. I’m afraid I have to agree with you Paulite on your point of “chilling logic,” with a qualifier: We don’t know Breivik’s mental condition and perhaps never will. He may have a brain tumor; he may be schizophrenic, although his writings do make him appear more an extremist than mentally disabled. He might not be a “madman,” but at this point he definitely is “lone” in that he was outside the Christian world.

    I can’t agree with the bellicose tone and animosity against Opticon’s research. Why do you mix a scholarly approach with phrases such as “semi-coherent” rant. That’s not fair at all. Opticon’s analysis is by far better than those who seem to be deliberately using Breivik to slander Christians. Opticon did the research and made reasonable conclusions.

    Gafney, Gellar, Spencer, Wilders: these are some of the heroes of our time. It is very suspect whether you are motivated to find the truth or to slander in exactly the same way Sarah Palin was and is slandered by the media. All the gold that is to be mined in the way of liberals finding the gross intolerance Islam has against Christians, Jews, and women, and instead, America is the villain? When 9/11 happened, who danced in the streets? Indeed, who immediately tried to take credit for the Norway murders? Do you see Gafney dancing in the streets? No. We are horrified and repulsed and will look for even more ways to prevent potential Breivik’s from joining our associations, even as Breivik was rejected by Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). And even as the tea party wins hearts and minds by a demonstration of acceptable protest behavior, the progressive union led left shows what is unacceptable behavior, which remains unreported in the socialist and Islam loving press. We make our own press and this is what provokes people who employ magical thinking and slogans.

    When Muslims murder in the name of Allah, we are warned not to equate that with Islam. The facts are suppressed but in every case it seems, the religion is the motive. Here, with Breivik, we see the facts do not support a religious motive. He was not supported by Christians and conservatives and Israel. His awful and demonic deed is not celebrated. We will make the truth known so that the general public, already sick of a prejudiced press, will give no credence to attempted slander.

    • I certainly don’t accept that people like Gaffney and Geller are heros of this or any other time. Not unless you consider unbalanced, unrelenting, remorseless seeking-out and printing negative stories about Moslems – mostly with opinion masquerading at fact – as heroic. Cowardly and dishonest might be better labels on this sort of thing. I was referring here to Gaffney rather than Geller. She is a rather different animal. Her method is simply to print untruths. Wilders would be uncomfortable to be placed in the company of either. He is a politician with views – many of them sensible – about assimilation, the rule of law, and the primacy of contemporary European liberal-democratic values. Many of Geert Wilders’ views on personal autonomy would be as incompatible with the views of the (so-called) “Christian” right in this country as with the views of fundamentalist Moslems.

      • I personally enjoy seeing how the beautify Pamela Gellar exposes the hatred and anger of Muslims. Her femininity and bravery incite them to such rage that they can barely contain themselves. Gellar presents a problem also to the progressives: She’s not a Christian; she is avowedly progressive in her views on civil liberties and especially is a champion for gay rights; how they wish she was on their side but she is not one for a mob or herd mentality. NO. This brave woman is a thinker and doer, a veritable tornado of concentrated action. Almost single handedly she exposed the hypocrisy of the ground zero mosque and its backers. Her blog is full of facts, cases, and incredibly well-researched information. Great minds and brave characters align with her and endorse her. She is a beautiful warrior.

        • Of course, Megatron, but you really shouldn’t have stopped taking your medication.

    • Robert Spencer and Pam Geller aren’t heros of this or any other time. The first is barely able to reason and the second has lost all contact with it.

  6. —” Opticon’s analysis is by far better than those who seem to be deliberately using Breivik to slander Christians. “—

    Damned indeed with faint praise.

    Yes, Meg, there actually are people who are more “off” than is the opticon.

    Which term do you prefer, half empty or half fullla ?

  7. “One common factor seemingly shared by all these supposedly lone terrorists is that they cruise the extreme blogosphere for reinforcement of their views and moral support.”

    If we could only shut down that extreme blogosphere those potential mal hechors wouldn’t get the encouragement that pushes them over the edge. And how about books? And other written material that encourages evil thoughts? Probably should do something about that as well. Those weird computer games short circuit some folk’s synapses, too. Maybe ought to pull the plug on that stuff. Not the Koran, though. It’s religious.

    • and while we’re shutting the extremes all down, chuck , let’s make it illegal to transmit Al-Manar TV

  8. I saw this man Breivik in his underwater assassin gear and his custom parade dress Templar blues and immediately thought of Eric Hoffer. To a man of such narcissistic bent, completely unable to form any real human attachment, any ideology will do.

    He blew up those hapless civil servants because it was dramatic. He gunned down those kids because they were defenseless and isolated. He surrendered because its time for his scene to really begin. I bet he knew that he might have killed a Muslim or two at best, then been stabbed to death.

    He is indeed on a holy crusade, but the holy cause is Brievikism.

  9. […] believe it’s really about that when I see the same media avoid posting the name or photo of an Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who massacred 77 people in a pair of attacks in 2011.  Breivik was after notoriety […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: