By LDC National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson
“Terrorism” is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political purposes.
Terrorism is always unjustified, no matter what the purpose or political goal.
Yet the Norwegian government justifies terrorism against
Israelis, while not wanting to be on the receiving end.
“Collateral damage” means, civilians who are inadvertantly killed or hurt
because they are in the vicinity of a war target. Collateral damage is inevitable in any armed conflict, whether invasion, defense against invasion, or rebellion.
Western militaries generally do not target civilians. During WWII, cities with military value were targeted, and many civilians died.
Though that technique has been out of favor for many years,
and collateral damage has decreased over the years as targeting and technology have improved.
Americans during the Revolutionary War did not target British
civilians or Americans with Tory sympathies. After the war,
there was no inquisition of Tories. In contrast, the French
Revolution did have a reign of terror after the monarchy
was overthrown. Edmund Burke, the father of modern
conservative libertarianism, supported the American but
denounced the French revolution.
Burke’s “Vindication of Natural Society” was an anthem
for humanism and liberty, pointing out that the two are
mutually reinforcing. As Burke pointed out, most wars in history were triggered by religious differences. Later, Ayn Rand pointed out (in Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World),that faith and force are mutually reinforcing and natural allies.
The Christian Crusaders, whom Anders (in his video) held up as role models, were Christian terrorists. They sacked Constantinople,enabling the later conquest by Muslims; and attacked non-Christians generally, without regard to their individual guilt or innocence.
Fortunately the Renaissance and Enlightenment have moderated
Christian terrorism; unfortunately a similar process has not
occurred in Islam.
Later, Burke did seem to presage Austrian economics in his
deference to the utility of tradition. Such traditions have evolutionary value, and no one person or small group may safely overthrow the habits of thought and action that developed over centuries.
The inevitably of collateral damage does provide empirical
support to this caution against radical or revolutionary change brought about at bayonet point. Most governments exhibit a degree of aggression, from tax theft to over regulation to outright campaigns of extermination. Resources are limited, and human nature is similarly limited. The harm caused by any particular government ought to be weighed against the harm caused by invasion or revolution.
The bizarre case of Anders Breivik does raise the question,
are the evils of the Norwegian govenrment sufficient
to warrant revolution? And if yes, what type of revolution?
Anders was allegedly vexed over Muslim immigration and
multi-culturalism in Norway. Of course, in Saudi Arabia
and most parts of Dar al-Islam, there is no such multi-culturalism.
Rather, there is Islamic mono-culture. So, to favor multiculturalism in areas where Islam is not dominant, while tolerating mono- culturalism where Islam is dominant, creates a one-way ratchet.
Once an area has been conquered by Islam, it can never change course.
While in areas not yet conquered by Islam, non-Islamic culture dies by
a thousand cuts–induced by high rates of Muslim-on-infidel aggression, including welfarism, theft, rape, assault, and murder. Which explains how previously non-Islamic Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc., now have (close to) Islamic mono-culture.
Just to give you a taste of what Norwegians are forced to deal with, about 80% of all rapes and virtually 100% of stranger-rapes there are Muslim-on-infidel. Muslim immigrants tend to not assimilate, and social costs in education, health, and welfare are much higher than for natives.
There are some restrictions on free speech in Norway,
but if you’re careful, you can still criticize Islam. The Wilders trial in Holland seemed to draw a line, you can criticize Islam but not Muslims as a group.
Norway is generally free, relative to the rest of the world.
In any event, disgruntled Norwegians are free to migrate to
Iceland, as a few brave Norwegians did 1000 years ago.
So no, revolution in Norway is not justified. Even if it were, that still does not justify the massacre of teenagers at a Labor party political training camp. Those students have not yet committed aggression, and not all will do so.
Similarly, Anders’ car bomb outside the Prime Minister’s
office caused death and injury to nearby civilians and and
destruction of their property. The greater the collateral damage, the higher the bar ought to be before revolution can be justified.
If Anders had limited his direct action to a few government
officials directly tied to aggression, there wouldn’t have
been such an outcry. Confronting them on the street,
one-on-one, wouldn’t have been very difficult.
So much for the ostensible motivations for Anders’ terrorism. Now let us examine his real motivations.
A few have noted the apparent inconsistency of justifying an
attack on mostly native Norwegians, by criticism of Muslims.
True, the Labor party is pandering to Muslims by allowing
them to immigrate in large numbers, and subsidizing them to court their votes. That the Labor party was his primary target,does seem to belie his alleged focus on Muslims.
Both Anders’ parents were staunch Labor party members.
His father actually worked for Labor governments,
as an economic analyst in their embassies. His father
left the home at Anders’ age one. This means, Anders
parents were not good role models for a successful
male-female bonding and stable family life.
Anders had no success getting girlfriends, despite his
good looks and ability to raise substantial sums of money.
Like some other “martyrs” about to die, he hired call-girls
shortly before his attacks.
He even mused about self-castration, in order to prove
bona fides to Al Qaeda, from whom he would obtain
WMD with which to attack Norwegians. Getting help
from Jihadists to slaughter infidels, is not what counter-
Jihadism is about.
His use of steroids and posing in a Seals-type outfit,
complete with machine gun, does seem over-the-top macho.
Anders imagines the good that Hitler would have done,
had he not been anti-Jewish. Anders praises various
neo-nazi groups, some of whom have de-emphasized
their traditional anti-Jewishness. That’s an easy switch to make,
now that 6 million European Jews have been eliminated.
Anders main resentment is against the Labor party.
His purported ideological justifications don’t add up.
Anders misquoted J. S. Mill, which indicates he got the
quote from a “famous quotes” website and not from actually reading On Liberty. He claims to like pro-industrial Ayn Rand, but plagiarizes from the Unabomber’s anti-industrial manifesto. He endorses both the Christian Crusaders and firmly atheistic Rand; selfless martyrdom, but also anti-altruistic Rand. And so on.
His anti-Jihadism is another mask, like his Freemason
outfit and his police uniform. He didn’t graduate from college,but claims college degree equivalency through self-study. His sexual and intellectual insecurities have led him to cover up his own inadaquecy in those departments.
Just as policemen should not be maligned because
Anders wore their uniform, neither should libertarians
or anti-Jihadists feel he is one of us.
The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.