Diary of a Madman

Posted on July 29, 2011 by


Anders Behring Breivik, according to many in the mainstream and non-mainstream media alike, is supposedly a name that will cause a lot of problems for the new conservative right in the West.

As the facts continue to seep out of Norway in the wake of last Friday’s horrific mass shootings and car bombing, the inevitable question arises as to what kind of madman would be capable of planning and executing such an evil atrocity as this.  Well, the uncomfortable truth here is that Breivik was hardly your “garden variety” madman.  His 1500 page manifesto, which is a mish-mash of alternative right ideas, personal history, and detailed instructions on how to mount a personal armed resistance, is indeed rambling and poorly edited, but at the same time remarkably lucid.  In it, Breivik writes profusely and quite lucidly about the problems engineered in the West, and especially in Europe, by “cultural Marxists” in an effort to destabilize the existing order and create a new one to their own liking.  There is little in the ideological portion of his massive textual hodge-podge that suggests violence, or even sounds as far right as many of the blogs the readers here peruse every day.

But then there is the other part.  The part where he describes the last few months of his life, and his preparations to commit mass murder.  The part where he describes, again in quite lucid detail, how other like-minded individuals could follow in his footsteps, and indeed he encourages them to do so.  And then the chilling final entries in his diary where he notes that the jig is up, and the plan is in execution mode.

What do we make of this?

The mainstream media mostly has no clue what to make of this, coming, as it does, from the general perspective of secularism.  That is, the media has essentially been trying to discern what social/familial/environmental/psychological/ideological “factor” could have caused this individual to commit this grandiose and grotesque atrocity (and, at the same time, to sift through which such factors may be “politically correct”, acceptable “factors”, and which may not be), because these are the only factors that “matter” to the secularized Western intelligentsia in the early 21st Century.  And, as usual, they get this completely wrong, as is their wont.

The case of Anders Behring Breivik can be rather easily ascertained thusly:  the young(ish) man was an educated, lucid individual who, tragically, lacked any sound moral foundation, and therefore acted in a way that was thoroughly and profoundly immoral.  In this, he was far beyond the pale of most secular people who, despite their often breathless protestations to the contrary, follow basic Christian morals, even if they recast them as a kind of “secular ethics” to make themselves feel better and steel their own secularist leftist bona fides.  But Breivik lacked this moral sense, this moral “brake”, this sensibility that, regardless of the rectitude of his analysis (and that of others) of the current programme of aggressive multiculturalism and cultural destruction being undertaken by Northern Europe’s entrenched social democratic elites, there could be no moral justification for what he planned to do.  The sense of the ends not ever justifying these kinds of means was lacking in Breivik — a very personal, and very tragic, moral shortcoming which unfortunately led to far too many completely needless and premature deaths.

There has been much public hand-wringing on the right about this tragedy in the aftermath.  However, I think this reflects, for the most part, a lack of confidence.  Breivik’s crime was his own, and resulted from precisely the kind of moral ambiguity that we ourselves critique every day in these blogs — the kind of moral ambiguity born itself of the Marxism which Breivik ironically critiques himself, an ambiguity which suggests that demonization and, in some cases, violence is a legitimate response to grievances, however legitimate these grievances may be.  In this sense, Breivik is also to some degree a product of the society that created him, a society which ideologically and politically endorses such “score settling”, although he turned those principles against that society itself:  conservatives do not pen manifestos, and they do not seek radical change by means of violence, pretty much by definition, following Burke’s critique of the French Revolution.  But, at bottom, Breivik’s crime was about himself, about a stark, and horrible, moral failing, a lack of morality, a lack of moral clarity and vision, that is truly tragic for the harm that it has caused countless people.

As moral and social conservatives, we do not need to lay low, or hang our heads in response to this crime.  Indeed, the traditional, conservative moral order that we seek would itself seek to instill, and enforce to some degree, moral values in all people so as to prevent precisely these kinds of horribly immoral acts from taking place.  Breivik is not us.  Rather, Breivik is the kind of person we are trying to avoid coming to fruition, by advocating for more traditional, morality-based social rules over against the ideology of hatred and division, of race vs race, men vs women, oppressor vs oppressed, of endless conflict between state-favored and state-disfavored groups, and so on.  The attempts by the leftists and leftist-sympathizers in the MSM to pin clearly immoral and unspeakable crimes such as this on people like us is simply an act of desperation and fear, and therefore something that we should capitalize on, rather than bemoan.  These are frustrated souls who are merely seeing the fruits of what can happen to *some* people, people who have worse than average moral capacity and formation, when ideas about common morality are trashed as “opium” and replaced with an ideology of eternal conflict, with state-and-society-picked winners and losers — and are having their own confidence shaken by this, regardless of the war-painted faces they are now showing in the MSM.  As conservatives, we have the natural advantage in a situation like this, because it is we who can clearly see the stark immorality here, as well as contributions of the socialist-democratic society that encouraged it: and so we stay the course, strongly confirmed in the rectitude of our views, yet at the same time reaching out in genuine sympathy for the tragic victims of this senseless atrocity.