But it does seem plausible that this guy was the equivalent of Timothy McVeigh.
I do think it will be interesting to watch how leftists who make excuses for Islamic terrorists (being victims and all that) will make no such excuses for this guy.
UPDATE: It appears that of the 90+ deaths so far, at least 85 of them were done by Breivik shooting. I am guessing that Norway is going to go down the same path on gun control that Britain has. This account from the Los Angeles Times is quite worrisome:
Police are focusing on a darker side. Though they said Breivik had no criminal record, they described him as a "right-wing Christian fundamentalist."Murdering dozens of defenseless, begging teenagers? Either the police are not accurately describing Breivik, or he missed something along the way.
UPDATE 2: The more I look at this, the more it makes me wonder if he is going to pass a sanity check. He has apparently confessed, and he is clearly a very smart but evil guy: dressing in a police uniform to get people close enough to commit mass murder shows intelligence--but the nature of this crime is certainly going to discredit those Norwegians who are concerned about multicultural and Islamic immigration. I am not sure what he could have done to make his ideas less appealing. His description of himself as:
Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement
certainly sounds wacky enough.
Yet his manifesto (1500 pages long) is here. I have not read terribly far into it, but several things strike me about it:
1. It is pretty well-written, considered this guy's native language isn't English:
The US’s founders recognised three primal values in the Declaration of Independence, and they ranked them properly: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If the order of these fundamental human rights is switched – with happiness before liberty or liberty before life – we come to moral chaos and social anarchy.
This very condition is what Judge Robert Bork describes as “modern liberalism.” He defines its characteristics as “‘radical egalitarianism’ (equality of outcomes rather than of opportunities) and ‘radical individualism’ (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification).”
Judge Bork also identifies radical feminism as “the most destructive and fanatical” element of this modern liberalism. He further describes radical feminism as “totalitarian in spirit.”
2. His analysis of the methods of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School are, within my level of knowledge, accurate. He seems to have a good grasp of the methods by which the left has accomplished its goals of destroying Western Civilization, and appears to be well read on the subject:
The most readable English-language history of the Frankfurt School is Martin Jay’s book, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research, 1932 - 1950 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1973 – new edition in 1996). This book is in print in paperback and can be ordered through any bookstore. The reader should be aware that Jay’s book is, in the words of another work on the Frankfurt School, a “semiofficial” history, which is to say that it is largely uncritical. Like virtually all other English-language authors on the Institute, Jay is on the political left. Nonetheless, the book provides a solid factual introduction to the Frankfurt School, and the reader should have little trouble discerning in it the roots and origins of today’s Political Correctness.
3. It doesn't sound crazy. He is saying things that are apparent to lots of people who would never think of doing a crime this horrendous.
And yet mowing down dozens of teenagers is about as shocking as it gets. He has managed to take what might have been a worthwhile document (although in desperate need of editing for length) and made it completely vile by his actions.