Much as I find unpalatable the rhetorical endowment of a "law" to the Norwegian monster who forsook his humanity, ripples larger than his malignancy, generated by its acts, are nevertheless sufficiently significant for the purport and telos of the Anti-Islam Movement to formulate from them a law.
Now then, Breivik's Law. The law has seven points, which I will first present in succinct form, then in more elaborately explanatory form:
1. Breivik considers the West to be evil and self-destructive at an emergency level.
2. Given #1, the only eventualities are
a) totalitarian oppression (already beginning in earnest) with the suffering and oppression only getting worse;
b) pan-Western civil war.
a) Given #2, the time for dialogue and persuasion is over: the only choice now is Submission to the evil West, or War against it by the good remnant of Westerners who remain and wish to save it.
b) Breivik in these terms logically chooses the latter, and takes the initiative to jump-start the civil war,which in turn logically entails fighting, attacking and killing representatives of the evil Western "Elites" who are in power.
4. Many members of the Anti-Islam Movement agree with Breivik from #1 clear through to #3a, but...
5. ...their vehement rejection of #3b seems incoherent and they provide no argument defending this rejection.
6. The PC MC mainstream has insinuated that the Anti-Islam Movement created an ideological and emotional climate conducive to inspiring and motivating Breivik to commit his atrocity. Absent a cogent argument as stipulated in #5, however, the PC MC mainstream has a point in this regard.
7. The more that the PC MC mainstream does #6, the more the Anti-Islam Movement representatives and members reiterate their theory about how hopelessly and self-destructively wicked the modern West has become -- thus reiterating the very same ideological structure of premises and conclusions, imbued with a quasi-Gnostic mood of alienation, which they share with Breivik.
What follows is an expanded, more detailed version of the above adumbration of "Breivik's Law":
1. Breivik notices that the modern West has been (or is being) taken over by evil "cultural Marxists" who are destroying our societies in two ways: through their own wicked "cultural Marxism" and through making us lethally vulnerable to a Muslim invasion -- both of these evils dovetailing in some grand Macchiavellian plan which is becoming an accelerating and dire emergency.
2. Under the extreme terms of this emergency as described in #1, there are only two logical outcomes, and either or both of them are fast approaching:
a) the evil "cultural Marxists" and their evil allies, the Muslims, will succeed in finalizing the wicked totalitarian tyranny they are constructing for the West (which will furthermore entail much oppression, misery and violent mayhem along the way)
b) the attempt of (a) will provoke a pan-Western Civil War among all the good Westerners who will wake up (even if this internecine reaction may be relatively fitful and sporadic), and this in turn may result, after years of horrible violence on both sides, in a victory for the good Westerners, or in their defeat, or in a horribly violent and protracted and chaotic stalemate for decades.
a) Breivik sees the emergency of #1 and #2 and sees that internal dialogue and rhetorical persuasion will no longer ameliorate the situation and comes to the logical conclusion: it is either War or Submission.
b) Breivik sees that the only right and good thing to do is to plunge into (and also jump-start) #2b pre-emptively in order to increase the chances of success for the good Westerners in their emergent struggle against the evil "cultural Marxists" of the West and their evil Muslim allies.
c) Breivik thus sees logically that the sooner we begin, pre-emptively, #2b (engaging in earnest in civil war against the evil "cultural Marxists" of the West and their evil Muslim allies), the better our chances at survival and victory.
d) And Breivik therefore takes the initiative and plans and initiates a pre-emptive strike against the evil cultural Marxists -- which means no more talking and blogging, but actually fighting and killing people as a "resistance fighter".
4. A significant number of individuals in the Anti-Islam Movement, many of them quite prominent, meanwhile, have come to the same conclusions, derived from the same premises, as has Breivik -- the premises and conclusions, that is, detailed from #1 clear through to #3b (and some even to #3c, though often mincing their words in complex and seemingly disingenuous, though perhaps merely sincerely incoherent, obfuscation).
5. For no cogently and coherently argued reason, however, all of these same individuals (with some cryptically worded seeming exceptions among some lower on the totem pole expressed in comments here and there on blogs) refuse to go further -- as expressed, at the very least, by simply endorsing it -- on to #3c and its inexorably logical next step, #3d. In place of a cogently and coherently argued reason why, they simply apodictically assert their ethical opposition to #3d.
Such an ethical opposition, however, makes no ostensible sense if one endorses #1 through #3b (and even worse, through #3c). Now, it might be possible to argue for such an ethical opposition to #3d, given a simultaneous endorsement of #1 through #3b (and perhaps even including #3c); but no one in the Anti-Islam Movement has even bothered to begin to attempt such an argument -- opting stubbornly to behave as though simply apodictically asserting their unargued opposition suffices, when it doesn't do anything but betray one of the great virtues of the West, its principle of Reason.
6. Meanwhile, the PC MC mainstream has insinuated that the Anti-Islam Movement created an ideological and emotional climate conducive to inspiring and motivating Breivik to commit his atrocity. Absent a cogent argument as stipulated in #5 (particularly paragraph 2), however, the PC MC mainstream has a point in this regard. (It is some small measure of consolation, perhaps, that the PC MC isn't smart enough, apparently, to zero in on this glaring deficiency and, by implication, demand that representatives of the Anti-Islam Movement come up with such an argument in their defense.)
7. Here's where Breivik's Law takes a perverse turn:
The more that the PC MC mainstream does #6, the more the Anti-Islam Movement representatives and members reiterate their theory about how hopelessly and self-destructively wicked the modern West has become -- thus reiterating the very same ideological structure of premises and conclusions, imbued with a quasi-Gnostic mood of alienation, which they share with Breivik (cf. #1 through #3b, as clarified in #5), but which, again, they incoherently and insufficiently assert has nothing to do with Breivik's logical conclusion of #3c-#3d.
"Breivik's Law" in action
The Thin Blue Line
Lawrence Auster (et al. in the Anti-Islam Movement) supports the same Gnostic alienation that motivated the Oslo murderer)