First, when I say "in action" I mean it in the sense that includes speech and ideas as "action".
Second, "Breivik's Law" has been put into action quite a number of times in the days since Breivik's attacks -- specifically, the nexus articulated with points 4 and 5 (see my post below, "Breivik's Law", for clarification) -- so today's example is nothing new.
Exhibit A comes from Lawrence Auster, one of the numerous members of the (still inchoate) Anti-Islam Movement whose actions (in the form of speech and ideas) seems to follow the law:
First, Auster describes the "suicide" of the modern West:
"Westerners believe that it is morally wrong to say no to any ... immigration. And there’s the path to white Western suicide in a nutshell. It is not some sinister external force (e.g., Cultural Relativism, Multiculturalism, the Frankfurt School, Political Correctness) that has us in a death grip, but our own liberal convictions, convictions that are held by the great majority of conservatives as well as liberals. Murdering lots of professional liberals, as Anders Breivik did and would like us to follow in his footsteps, is not going to change that by one iota. Only a turnabout within the minds and souls of a sufficient number of Westerners can change it." [lurid emphasis in both bold and italics in original]
Here, Auster is putting point 5 into action -- specifically, the expression of a framework of an emergency situation in the West ("Western suicide... that has us in a death grip") coupled with the apodictic assertion, with no argument defending it, of a distance between himself and Breivik's logical conclusion of what to do about that emergency; then amplifying that apodictic assertion by simply apodictically stating that the only way to deal with this emergency situation is by "a turnabout within the minds and souls of a sufficient number of Westerners" which would specifically not include "[m]urdering lots of professional liberals" (the ones directly responsible for the West's emergency situation).
Meanwhile, nearby on Auster's blog, we see this description from a reader ("Dean Ericson") which Auster does nothing to correct, allowing us to assume reasonably that he supports its gist:
"They [i.e., the evil liberals in the form of the mainstream media through one of its many tentacles, in this case, the Daily Mail] have to paint [Breivik] as insane because if he isn't insane then they would have to take seriously the reasons Breivik gives in his manifesto: that the treasonous Norwegian leftist elite is implementing a program of genocide against its own people. It's unthinkable for the leftist establishment to countenance such a claim, so Breivik must be insane. Just like the old Soviet Union, where opposition to socialism was prima facie evidence of insanity."
This would be point 4, which was also clearly implicit in the Auster quote above -- namely, the description of the current West as in the "death grip" of an evil elite bent on its destruction (you can't get more urgently alarming than "implementing a program of genocide against [your] own people", for God's sake).
Granted, both "Dean Ericson" and Auster are specifically referring to Breivik's manifest motive; but of course, they agree with the premise at its foundation -- viz., that the leftist elite not only in Norway, but throughout the West, is implementing a program of genocide against its own people. I dare either of them to say they disagree with that premise. And furthermore, as "Dean Ericson" goes on to say, this leftist elite is controlling the news "[j]ust like the old Soviet Union" in trying to manipulate the purport and lesson of the Breivik attacks.
The point of points 4 and 5 is that they demand an explanatory argument that so far has been wanting among these members of the Anti-Islam Movement.
Auster's attempt to dissociate himself from ostensible conspiracy theory about the currvent West's evil (viz., "[i]t is not some sinister external force (e.g., Cultural Relativism, Multiculturalism, the Frankfurt School...") is not only disingenuous, it is incoherent when in another recent post he makes inflammatory and hyperbolic statements like the following: "...the Norwegian Labour Party are active supporters and allies of terrorists..." If he really means what he writes (and he should really mean what he writes, if he wants to be a responsible and coherent analyst), then all good Westerners are obliged to actively fight such Leftists (which, according to Auster and others in the Anti-Islam Movement, are not limited to Norway nor its Labour Party) -- fight them literally, just as we would fight terrorists. Certainly Auster wouldn't advocate dialogue and persuasion with terrorists in the hopes that a "turnabout within the minds and souls of a sufficient number" of them will ameliorate (let alone solve) the problem: he would advocate actual physical violent fighting -- as we did against Hitler and Hirohito, and as Breivik did against the Norwegian "supporters and allies of terrorists".
This incoherency isn't just a matter of one or two comments by Auster (and Baron Bodissey, El Ingles, Fjordman, et al.) -- they do this regularly and copiously.
Speaking of which, here is Exhibit B:
Fjordman, showcased (and thus fully countenanced by) the Gates of Vienna blog in June of this year, described the UK as:
...a Western government virtually launching a full-front attack to crush its own people have so far not caused a single word of protest from political leaders or mass media in any other Western country, although these acts could be construed as a policy of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing targeting the white majority population. In my country’s mass media, these public admissions from Neather were hardly mentioned at all, although journalists never miss an opportunity to warn against the dangerous tide of “white racism and xenophobia” that is supposedly sweeping the Western world today. I have since come to suspect that the reason for this shameful silence is that the authorities in all Western countries without exception themselves follow similar, deliberate policies of dispossessing Europeans and therefore see nothing wrong in what the British government did. [emphasis added]
Fjordman goes on to note the kinds of atrocities this "policy of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing" by Western governments against their own people includes:
Also in Britain, immigrant gangs, especially Muslims, of sexual predators have exploited and abused hundreds of girls as young as 12 — usually white — who are plied with drink and drugs and then raped, abused and degraded.
And, of course, that is only one of many atrocities against Western people which the modern Western "Elites" are willfully, consciously and wickedly enabling (which the title of his essay boldly describes as "treason") while colluding with Muslims. What is most peculiar, then, is Fjordman's baffled, bewildered and beleaguered reaction to those who connect him to Breivik in terms of a shared ideology. There's no mystery here: both he and Breivik believed the Western intelligentsia were destroying the West:
Fjordman apparently believed the only thing to do about this Red Alert Emergency was to sit back and blog about the central representatives of that evil intelligentsia who are wickedly fomenting this Red Alert Emergency and who, indeed, are described in the title of his essay as the real enemy worse than Muslims; Breivik simply went further and believed, putting Fjordman's implicit logical conclusion into unremarkably logical practice, that he had to go out and fight and kill this most wicked and dire enemy of the West.
Paul points to a couple of houses and says "they're on fire". He also points to certain members of the town notoriously assumed to be wicked arsonists -- many of whom belong the town's Elites -- who go around setting houses on fire and killing elderly people and children therein.
Paul hears Peter and David discussing how those same houses are on fire, and how this reflects a general problem in the town of houses on fire, and how wicked arsonists -- many of whom belong the town's Elites -- are going around setting houses on fire and killing elderly people and children therein.
Paul then plans to take action to save the houses, by taking an ax to their walls and dousing them with hundreds of gallons of water, thereby effectively destroying them, and furthermore rounding up supposedly known arsonists who have been burning the elderly and children to death for years, and killing them.
Peter and David shake their heads and cluck, "Paul went too far -- we can these stop houses on fire and this epidemic of arson murders through dialogue and persuasion which over time will effect a turnabout of the minds and souls of a sufficient number of townspeople".
But Peter and David offer no actual argument showing how their solution to the problem of houses on fire and arson murders in the town is better than Paul's.
Indeed, the way Peter and David talk about the emergency of houses on fire and arson murders, it is Paul's reaction that makes more sense, not theirs.
Only if Peter and David are mistaken in their assessment, and are exaggerating the problem into emergency proportions -- notwithstanding that their own words have been regularly and copiously implying such a dire emergency -- would their response make better sense.
Or, they can try to present an actual argument showing how their response is better, even given the fact that they agree with Paul on the dire and evil emergency gripping the town.
As for the latter, I'm still waiting on that.