Constantly amazed 2
And I'm constantly amazed by the complete incomprehension of what Breivik is doing. From the Guardian's Helen Pidd:
Some on Twitter this morning have queried an assertion I made in my main story on Tuesday in which I wrote that Breivik never "fully articulated" the threat on which he was so fixated.
But what made Tuesday such an arduous day in court was not just the hateful nature of his testimony, but the fact that so much of it was completely contradictory.
Not only does Breivik claim that he had copied al-Qaida's strategies in order to protect the west from the Islamist threat, but he also insisted that his goal (in the short to medium term) was to make pariahs of Europe's nationalists – the very people with whom you might expect him to feel kinship.
"I thought I had to provoke a witchhunt of modern moderately conservative nationalists," he said.
The effect of this "witchhunt", said Breivik, would be to increase "censorship" of moderately nationalist views, which would "increase polarisation". The effect of this, he said, would eventually lead to "more radicalisation as more will lose hope and lose faith in democracy". Ultimately, he said, these new radicals would join the war he has started to protect the "indigenous people" of Norway and western Europe.
Nothing contradictory at all. Standard tactic of any activist group that wants to succeed. Invented by Lenin, perfected by the black activists and Friedanites of the '60s, and formalized by Alinsky.
Sure enough, he got exactly what he wanted. The alleged 'moderate conservatives' have been running a hardline jihad against the real nationalists.
The one part of Breivik's mindset that strikes me as unusual (but not contradictory) is this: His agenda is closer to the standard Western government than to the standard Nationalist type. He strongly favors Israel and hates Muslims. Same as any Western government, same as most Western media. The difference is that Breivik treats the Muslim-hatred seriously and consistently, while the Western gov'ts play all sorts of idiotic games with it. After every supposed attack by supposed Muslims they tell us to watch 'suspicious behaviors', implying that we should beware of Muslims; but when anyone actually reports suspicious behavior by an actual Muslim, the authorities come down HARD on the complainant.
Makes me wonder: Is this another part of the Alinskian tactic? Intentionally forcing the authorities into cognitive dissonance by applying strict logic to their idiocy?
They're certainly showing all the signs of CD.