Forget what I’ve said about pursuit in self-defense. The latest development in Anders Breivik’s story certainly takes the prize for Bizarrest Self-Defense Claim. Apparently he acknowledges that he killed 77 unarmed people and wounded 242 others but claims it was not a criminal act because it was self-defense.
I can’t think of a greater possible semantic stretch a defendant might ask of those who judge him. I admire the courage of the man’s attorney.
I certainly sympathize with Breivik’s feelings of beleaguerment in a decadent world. Surely the deterioration of traditional values (and I mean by that something quite a bit more traditional than anything much seen in the past hundred years) can destroy one’s soul. But I don’t think that makes this sort of behavior a real act of self-defense.
As I said before, when confronted with a soft (albeit determined) attack on traditional values, the appropriate response must be similarly soft. Anything more would in fact be a violation of the traditional values one is trying to defend.
Anders, thank you for recognizing a fundamental problem in modern society. Thank you for wanting to do something about it.
I only wish you had chosen to do something proportionate and more directly related to the real problem. The culprit that needed killing was a group of bad ideas, not a group of young Norwegians. As it is, you’ve seriously botched things for the rest of us who want to speak out about modernist decadence.
You might as well have become an SV prime minister ushering in a new era of Marxist totalitarianism for your people.