A great deal of nonsense has been written about Anders Breivik, the man who ruthlessly attacked the ruling Norwegian Labour Party.
That pretty well everyone – myself not excluded – recoiled at his actions, does not belie the accuracy of Breivik's research and analysis in his 'manifesto', which is in line with most scholarship in respect of both PC and Islam.
It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of 'cultural Marxism'. So we are, in effect, 'at war' within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.
And Islam seems not to be a benign religion that is toxic only to the extent that some have adopted a veneer of Western revolutionary thinking after Marx to produce a fundamentalism. Breivik makes an exhaustively detailed convincing case that the problem is inherent in the core of the religion itself and how it is interpreted generally; contrary to what I have previously understood (until recent reading of scholars had already set me along these lines).
It is not through any Christian religiosity that Breivik arrives at his position: he is not in any way a practising Christian, let alone a Christian fundamentalist as has been claimed -- or, rather, guessed. But it is when he gets on to Christianity in his 'manifesto' that Breivik's thesis seems to me perhaps to be weak.
A Christian based governance is inherently "serving" and therefore not as corruptible as other forms, Breivik argues. But what about the evidence from history – and, yes, this is a long time ago, granted – of the corrupt payments for 'indulgences'? He says that whereas "Liberal modernity" is down to "a God of Mammon" and Islam is "the will of God in Sharia"; with Christianity "the government is first accountable to the revealed will of God". Well, isn't this just any projection those in power care to think up? Looking at our own Christian leaders, currently this seems to be PC.
Christianity has to rise again, Breivik hopes: presumably he thinks (correctly) that religion in some form is inevitable, so that rather than the humanism that simply substituted mankind for God to beget Marxism, we'd be better off with the status quo ante. This is similar to the positions of Franco and Hirohito, who sought not the revolutionary overthrow of elites in the interests of the masses -- as would Marxists and their very close brothers the fascists – but merely to bolster fading national religions (Catholicism and Shintoism) and monarchies. Yet is it not something more than mere optimism to expect that some return to rationality will replace PC-fascism after it implodes?
As for his take on the gender [sic] aspect of PC, it may be that Breivik was influenced by his immediate family background. He had a relationship with his family members, excepting his father, who left the family when Anders was aged just one. He always maintained full contact with his mother, notwithstanding lamenting what he regarded as her promiscuity. This Breivik blames on the moral relaxing that attended PC, though it seems more likely that this was an association rather than that PC was the major causal factor (PC in any case not being a significant presence at this time). Surely it was instead down to the advent in the 1960s of near-infallible contraception, which relieved men of the obligation to enter 'shotgun marriage'. [This is the basis of the 'great disruption', as Francis Fukuyama terms the social change Breivik bemoans.]
It may be that his early experiences and how he reviewed them in later life are a critical part of Breivik's motivation to move from what is a worthy analysis to the sort of violence few would contemplate (at least seriously), let alone carry out. Maybe we will get to know in time, after the wild speculations have evaporated and a more dispassionate focus comes to bear.
A loner Breivik appears not to be: he had friends. There is no evidence that Breivik is insane or even psychopathic: his calmness during the attack does not mean that he would be indifferent to people in other situations. He's intelligent, well-educated, and very capable of clear thought – though whether or not he 'over-thought' regarding strategy is another question. Though his actions may turn out to be counter-productive, at least for now he's succeeded more than anyone else in prompting a very widespread focus on the major problem that is PC. That can hardly be denied.