Three theories on the Oslo mass-murderer

• • •

There seem to be only three theories for the Oslo mass-murderer's motivation:

1) He's an individual alienated from, and detesting, what is perceived to be a modern West controlled by Leftism -- and as one ingredient of that alienation and hatred, he is anti-Islam: This resembles a phenomenon I have over the past year or two noticed is one strand cultivated (or is brooding) in the general Anti-Islam Movement, in which the anti-Islam component is believed to be really only a small part of a supposedly larger, deeper problem -- the problem, that is, of a modern West more or less hopelessly diseased with Leftism, with virtually all of its major institutions and organs of civilization controlled by evil Leftist Elites.

Lawrence Auster's description in this regard is apt:

"...perhaps he's one of those extremely "pessimistic conservatives." You say "his fellow Norwegians." Perhaps to him they weren't his people anymore. Since the West is declining and veering towards collapse, why not hasten the decline? It's similar to Roissy going after all of the bar skanks and "gaming" low-quality women and sluts instead of persevering in goodness despite all of the incredible troubles around us. Perhaps he sees those young people and teenagers as too late to save or no longer his people. How could they be "his people" if they continually believe in concepts like multiculturalism, diversity and whatnot? How could "his fellow Norwegians" do this to their own country? To him perhaps they were traitors. What he did was terrible but it's not hard to understand what would lead to this monstrous act."

If this theory is correct, I frankly see the alleged mass-murderer, Anders Breivik, as acting out one of the logical consequences of the type of profound, quasi-Gnostic alienation from the West I see often on, for example, the Gates of Vienna blog, both in formal posts there (e.g., in the writings of Fjordman and El Ingles, as well as of its owner, Baron Bodissey) and on the part of some of its regular commenters. To such an individual that far gone in this kind of quasi-Gnostic alienation, as Breivik would seem to be, the obvious sociopolitical fallout from his act -- giving the dominant "Leftist" culture propaganda ammunition by which to damn the "right wing" anti-Islam movement -- wouldn't matter all that much to him, since he sees the West as hopelessly lost already anyway, and it's time now for war against it. A Fjordman, El Ingles, or Baron Bodissey might be wiser in their restraint and less hopeless (and thus more pragmatic about the perpetration of acts that would damage the reputation of the cause -- the cause not being anti-Islam per se, but really anti-("Leftist")-West), and they may be genuinely ethically repulsed by the kinds of murder Breivik committed: but their ideas they indulge in are ideologically of a piece with the kind of alienation that in Breivik morphed into his grotesquely logical conclusion he acted out -- if indeed Theory #1 is correct.

2) He's an average relatively intelligent supporter of the Anti-Islam Movement who, due apparently to mental instability exacerbating his impatience and fury with how slowly the West is taking to wake up to the problem of Islam, couldn't take it anymore and had this outburst of mass-murder.

The problem with this theory is that:

a) If he's not excessively alienated from the West like type #1, then he wouldn't target non-Muslims in his attacks, but he would have stormed a mosque or madrassa or Muslim neighborhood (I'm sure there exist more than one even in Oslo, Norway these days) and mass-murdered Muslims and blown up Muslim buildings.

b) Whether or not he did (a), and given the fact of what he did do (mass-murdered fellow non-Muslim Norwegians), he would have to be extraordinarily stupid if he didn't figure out that the PC MC establishment and all its millions of followers throughout the West would exploit his act and milk it for every last drop of "See, not all terrorism is caused by Muslims!" and "See, we have to worry about anti-Islam bigots like Breivik just as much, if not more, than we have to worry about Muslims!"

Again, Auster articulated at least some data that supports the theory that he was this type of anti-Islam individual:

"I've just glanced at some of his online comments at that page. He sounds like an intelligent conservative trying to understand the issues of the day. He doesn't give off any signs of being the kind of person he has turned out to be.

"In the below comment he attacks "hate" ideologies, among which he includes Islam, Nazism, and Communism. This is not the kind of argument that would be used by the anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi far right. It is the kind of argument one would expect to find at conservative anti-jihad sites."

Breivik may seem to be intelligent, but if he wasn't the alienated hopeless type of Theory #1, then his seeming level-headed intelligence evinced by his various comments in the Blogosphere is vitiated by the supreme stupidity of his act -- essentially handing a propaganda victory on a silver platter to the very same PC MCs he supposedly intelligently recognizes as being a problem. One would then have to pull out the insanity defense for such astounding incoherence and stupidity: i.e., of an otherwise intelligent anti-Islam individual who is not a conspiracy nut alienated from his own West who yet goes massively postal, not only perpetrating a horrible atrocity but also at the same time monumentally shooting his own movement in the foot.

Theory #2 thus does not hold much water. Theory #1 is more likely.

3) The third theory is that this was some elaborately planned hoax, planned by Muslims and/or extremely disaffected Leftist/Anarchists in league with Muslims -- precisely in order to create a horrible act of terrorism they can exploit as a second Timothy McVeigh. One reason why they would do it is that they feel the need to do it -- which would mean that they are perceiving that their propaganda on their side of the War of Ideas is beginning to lose its edge (if only for the increasingly visible fact of the sheer quantity and horrible quality of the hundreds of terrorist acts, successful and foiled, along with the extremism that more and more seems systemic to Islamic culture), and so they felt the need to do this to win back their edge.

Until, however, we have evidence of such a plot, we cannot indulge in its likelihood, else we would be succumbing to conspiracy theory ourselves. (Update: Lawrence nicely articulates this problem: scroll down in that link.) And if we begin to think that the establishment -- the Norwegian government, law enforcement and its news media (along with Western news media in general) -- is part of a cover-up of an Islamic cause of this terrorist attack, we would begin to slip into the very same mindset that may have motivated Breivik himself (if Theory #1 is correct, which it most likely is).

If this act was ultimately Islamic (either by Breivik himself being a covert Muslim convert or by Muslims using him), because I am not Gnostically alienated from my own West as many in the AIM are, I have hope in the Western establishment to uncover and report it (though it may require the industrious and ingenious help of volunteers from the anti-Islam Blogosphere to pitch in) -- even if, in the process, they may do their usual song & dance of strangely downplaying the Islam angle and anxiously worrying about a "backlash" against the Muslim population that never seems to occur.