The poisoned fruit of Gnostic alienation

I have been analyzing the problem of the West's myopia to the problem of Islam for years, in often lengthy detailed essays.

I have come to the conclusion that the problem (which, for want of a better term, I label PC MC -- "Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism") is precisely not "Leftism", precisely not "liberalism", precisely not "cultural Marxism", precisely not "Socialism". That is indeed the whole point of coming up with the label PC MC in the first place: to denote a phenomenon insufficiently diagnosed by those other terms flung about with glibly consternated abandon by self-styled "Conservatives". While those sociopolitical diseases (all more or less synonymous, though suffering from imprecise terminology) certainly have influenced PC MC in certain ways, they are not dominantly represented by PC MC, and therefore they are not dominant and mainstream in the West -- as is PC MC.

The Oslo mass-murderer, Anders Breivik, according to these excerpts from his writings, repeatedly equates PC with "cultural Marxism", identifies it as the force that is destroying the West, and a couple of times mentions "the Frankfurt school" as a fundamental source of the cultural malignancy he felt was destroying the West.

Breivik's grievous misconception reflects a profound alienation from his own West. It is essentially the same type of alienation reflected massively and copiously in the writings of Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, Fjordman, El Ingles, Seneca III, Lawrence Auster, and numerous other commenters (some of whom have blogs, some of whom only participate in discussions in comments threads) who more or less support the anti-Islam movement. A typical example of this is on display at a recent Gates of Vienna essay (which over the years seems to have become a veritable warehouse or greenhouse for the fecund growth and cultivation of such speculations), both by its writer and among nearly all the commenters.

This alienation leads logically to the actions of Breivik: Breivik's attacks were paramilitary acts of war against an enemy he had come to consider evil monsters destroying his civilization. His demonization of the internal enemy is essentially the same (only less sophisticated, as befits a front-line soldier) as that of Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, Fjordman, El Ingles, Lawrence Auster, and numerous other commenters (some of whom have blogs, some of whom only participate in discussions in comments threads) who more or less support the anti-Islam movement.

The only other difference between them and Breivik -- other than his relative lack of intellectual sophistication -- is that he took seriously the Red Alert Emergency directly implied by this alienated viewpoint, and began actually shooting and killing the Enemy Who is Destroying the West.

Meanwhile, Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, Fjordman, El Ingles, Lawrence Auster, and numerous other commenters (some of whom have blogs, some of whom only participate in discussions in comments threads) who more or less support the anti-Islam movement sit back in their online armchairs ethically horrified at the acts of Breivik, yet they continue to sound the Red Alert Emergency about the West being controlled and destroyed by Evil Marxists.

Who is more logically consistent? The one sounding the Red Alert Emergency warning of the West being controlled and destroyed by Evil Marxists, but doing nothing about that Emergency? Or the one who takes action and begins fighting (and killing) the Evil Marxists who are controlling and destroying our West?

As for the former: What are they expecting? That the Evil Marxists will round them up and begin to kill them all, and yet they wouldn't put up a fight to defend themselves? Or that, prior to the rounding up and killing, they won't do anything to pre-emptively prevent it?

Or do they expect that a pan-Western Civil War will begin to unfold and the Good Conservatives would begin fighting (and killing) the Bad Marxists? And who will win this pan-Western Civil War? Will they try to help by assisting those who are actually doing the fighting (and killing) of the Evil Marxist enemy? Or will they sit aloof and wash their hands of the Civil Warriors defending the West, as they have consistently done so with regard to Breivik?

Or do they expect the West to keep on coasting along as it is, with no violence and no unraveling into general chaos and mayhem, while they continue Blogging and Complaining forever about some Impending Doom that never seems to actually happen, while physical action by them is never, apparently, actually required?

Breivik simply acted out the logical conclusions massively, copiously and obsessively present in the writings of Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, Fjordman, El Ingles, Lawrence Auster, and numerous other commenters (some of whom have blogs, some of whom only participate in discussions in comments threads) who more or less support the anti-Islam movement.

If these individuals were ethically horrified by Breivik's acts, then they are incoherent hypocrites, and strangely dense in being blind to the direct lineage leading from their quasi-Gnostic alienation from their own West to the poisoned fruit of Breivik's acts.

I am frankly astonished that these individuals cannot see this. Or, perhaps I shouldn't be: for, the same deluded state of mind that obsesses about a Gnostic alienation from one's one civilizational structures may well carry with it certain ophthalmological defects obstructing clear vision.

What one expects, so long as one considers them reasonably intelligent, is that they recognize this dilemma, and try to articulate intelligent distinctions between their alienation and Breivik's alienation. Instead, however, they affect a posture of absolute and utter discontinuity between their alienation and Breivik's alienation -- a posture so belied by the content of their writings over the years as to fall into the category of two logical fallacies for the price of one:

the Emperor With No Clothes Who Is Trying To Have His Cake and Eat It Too.

(Note: the preceding is predicated upon Theory #1 for explaining Breivik's motivation.)

Further Reading:

"Breivik's Law" (and therein is further included more links to other pertinently related essays)