THINK OF Anders Behring Breivik, the man who bombed a government building in Norway before proceeding to cold-bloodedly massacre scores of defenseless young people on a secluded island several miles away, as an Adolf Hitler of one. The first Adolf Hitler was a Hitler to millions. He captured an entire nation and terrified the world for years.
One imagines that the two, if ever they could have a quiet talk together, would have much to agree on. Both were meticulous planners, though I dare say Breivik was Hitler’s superior. He would not delay an invasion of Russia. Both harbored grudges against threats to their culture from the foreign-born, and what Breivik called the “cultural Marxists.” I can well imagine the Führer admiring Breivik’s taste in uniforms, his Aryan features, and his longing for his Viking past. Both were mama’s boys.
The New York Times rushed into print the front-page headline: “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist.” Within hours, applying the appellation “Christian” to the assassin subsided, and by the next day the newspaper settled on identifying Breivik with an organization that may or may not exist beyond his deranged mind, the “Knights Templars.” It was a military force from the Middle Ages that went on a crusade. I actually doubt Breivik is any kind of Christian, but rather a fanatical pagan, a Viking. On that, he and Hitler might congratulate themselves. Both were pre-Christian savages.
Breivik hated Muslims and other immigrants entering into Norway, and now the amazing Liberals are linking him to almost any critic of immigration or of Islam, even critics of illegal immigration and of militant Islam — terrorists, for instance. I find these Liberals amazing because most have never shown any sympathy for any of the West’s organized religions, at least not religions that demand anything from their believers. I suppose a religion that suggested yoga or Pilates from adherents or perhaps vegetarianism might appeal to these Liberals. Yet I cannot see them respecting an obligation to attend Sunday church or honor a celibate priesthood or defend female-male marriage, or any other requirement associated with an established religion of the West.
What is the American Liberal’s position on “sharia law”? There are places in Europe, and I dare say America, where Muslims are insisting on the practice of sharia law with all of its strictures against women’s rights and, come to think of it, against the traditional democratic freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought for and brought into the law of the land. On other matters, from purchasing alcohol to practicing homosexuality, sharia law is against it.
Europe, for people of faith and for people of no faith (though they replace religious rigor with substitutes, say global warming), is in serious trouble. Writing from Norway, the critic of Islamic fundamentalism Bruce Bawer asserted in the Wall Street Journal that “Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with sharia law.”
Bawer does not strike me as anyone that Liberals have to worry about. Yet maybe they do. Still, after all the Liberals’ dithering, it is sobering to think that Breivik shared so much with Hitler. Hitler captured the loyalty of a nation. Breivik was a loner. How many more would-be Breiviks and Hitlers are out there? I doubt the Liberals’ dithering ever thwarted a Breivik or a Hitler’s grand designs. For that you need a Churchill or a Roosevelt, a pre-modern Liberal.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?