A few weeks ago, on the twenty-second of July to be precise, Anders Breivik killed sixty-nine people in a double terrorist attack in Norway. The media, and such organs as Wikipedia
as well, have decided, with no good evidence, that Breivik is a right-wing extremist and that we on the right, in political terms, are to blame for his violence simply because we publish the facts as we see them, and our opinions about those facts, that the political left disagree with. Those on the left maintain that our publication of our opinions and our discovered facts triggered Breivik's rampage. Palpable nonsense, of course, because that accusation in itself is merely displacement behaviour – imputing to us the very thing for which in reality they may be responsible.
Violence and terrorism is the normal and usual behaviour of the political left – witness such left-wing terrorist organisations as the notorious “fighting communist organisations” that have operated in Western Europe since the 1970s: the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Army Faction, the Communist Combatant Cells, Direct Action, the Red Brigades, the First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Groups, the Revolutionary Organisation of the 17th. November, the Popular Forces of the 25th. April and the Revolutionary Left. In the Americas there are the Sandinistas, the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), the19th. of April Movement, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the May 19th. Communist Organisation (also referred to as the May19th. Communist Coalition, a US-based, self-described revolutionary organisation formed by splintered-off members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army). In Japan there is the Japanese Red Army and in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) we have just seen the first defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In India armed Naxalite (militant communist) movements are considered to be the country's largest internal security threat. Also, we mustn't forget the unholy alliance of the left and Al Qaida (in all its forms) that dates back nearly four decades now and has been responsible for some of the most horrific terrorist violence ever seen; not to mention the violence engendered by every left-wing revolution which has ever taken place (think Pol Pot).
Small wonder, then, that Breivik, having arrived at his ramshackle and distinctly odd political beliefs, decided to commit acts of terrorist violence. The left have presented him with so many examples of just how to perpetrate such terrorist violence that it could be viewed as inevitable that he would copy them and slaughter innocents rather than find a sensible way to protest – even in his own, native Norway the Socialist Left Party has supported Mohammedan violence in the past and is currently not fussy as to whom it gets into bed with, politically speaking. Anders Breivik's political beliefs are rambling, immature, incoherent and downright crazy but the carnage that he perpetrated is a pure copy of any number of left-wing actions that you may care to name. No, we on the right who merely exercised our right to free speech and never advocated violence against anyone – least of all against the Mohammedans whose decidedly weird, cruel and sadistic religious beliefs we inveigh against – are not to blame for Breivik's actions: the left are to blame for his actions for it was them whom he imitated.
We also have to remember that in Norway it is only in recent years that a robust truly right of centre political party has emerged (the Progress Party, now the second largest in the (unicameral) Storting) and that the rather incoherent, elderly and wishy-washy centre-right party (the Conservative Party, pro-European Union and now languishing in the doldrums with only seventeen percent of the vote) refuses to even consider allying itself with the much more popular Progress Party (forty-one seats (out of one hundred and sixty-nine) and almost a quarter of the vote) which it views as lacking respectability (for 'respectability' read 'leftist inclinations') and credibility (for 'credibility' read 'belief in left-wing fantasies'). Indeed, it is a moot point, given the dominance of the left and the its occupation of the legal system, the education system and the media, whether Norway can be regarded as a fully free society and fully developed democracy at this moment in time. The emergence of the Progress Party has certainly improved the position vis-a-vis democracy, but the left has been in power for so long and so often that the Norwegian Statute book is full of laws which the Norwegian courts use to penalise and stifle any right-wing political expression and this is making life extremely awkward for the Progress Party. That, and the fact of a unicameral parliament, mitigates against any pretensions Norway may harbour about being a full democracy.
That is a situation repeated in almost every country in Europe – the left have effectively throttled free speech and free political expression almost everywhere that the fell hand of the European Union has touched, although, to be fair, Norway is not in the Union, merely very heavily dependent upon it and very deeply integrated into it.
So, my thesis is this: that Anders Breivik is obviously a psychopath – witness his latest emotionless display when reconstructing his crimes at the left-wing indoctrination and propaganda youth camp on the island of Utoya which is typical psychopathic behaviour – and that the particular conditions of the society in which he lived (current Western European society as formed by decades of left-wing rule and the left-wing bullying of anyone who evinces a different political hue), together with examples, too numerous to list, of left-wing violence perpetrated against civilians, inspired his murderous rampage. Of course, Breivik derived the inspiration for his ramshackle, cobbled together and haphazard political beliefs from just about every source that one can imagine: from Edmund Burke, Mahatma Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell, as well as from Melanie Phillips' Daily Mail column, Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch and the highly respected German journalist Henryk Broder's writings, to name but a few, but the example of behaviour which he chose to emulate for the furtherance of his oddball beliefs was the very readily available left-wing, and jihadist, template of random violence against ordinary citizens. This is model which the left has used consistently for well over two hundred years.
The chickens have come home to roost and neither the left, nor its Mohammedan allies, like that one little bit. Unable to face up to the fact that theirs is the model which Breivik followed for his actions those on the left have spent the last few weeks desperately trying to displace the blame onto us on the right, but, and to quote Burns “facts are chiels that winna ding, an downa be disputed” (A Dream, 1786) and it is obvious to even the most callow of observers that although his ideas are badly plagiarised from a huge variety of sources, his actions, his psychopathic actions, are borrowed from one source only: the historical terrorist violence of the European left – a violence which continues to this very day.
It has to be added here that work by Dr. Robert Hare, Dr. Paul Babiak and Dr. Kent Kiehl has revealed that there are many, many psychopaths living amongst us and leading reasonably normal lives. They can usually be spotted as they are people who have great difficulty empathising with others and seeing things from another's point of view. Usually they are incapable of genuine remorse or guilt and they appear to have a very limited range of emotions. They can often be extremely impulsive and callous with poor behavioural control. They are often superficially charming and prone to boredom. They are frequently parasitic with an inflated sense of self-worth often exhibiting as arrogant grandiosity. You probably know one or two people who fit some, or all of these criteria and you probably have never suspected that their behaviours were, in a real sense, pathological for they manage to fit in and lead a near normal life. Usually, they are liars with a large sense of entitlement, as well. They, themselves, are not aware that their behaviours are categorised as pathological, either.
Dr. Hare: “Serial murderers are very unusual and very rare; we don't know why one person with many psychopathic characteristics will become a serial murderer and a thousand others won't. It could be opportunity, chance, flukes, experimentation. We just don't know.” (BBC Focus, Issue 230, July 2011, p. 59.)
What Dr. Kiehl's researches have revealed, as well as the investigations by Dr. Michael Craig and his team at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London (UK), is that there seems to be some physical difference, or damage, to certain areas of a psychopath's brain which could explain their behaviours.
Put Dr. Hare's comment together with the discoveries of Dr Kiehl and Dr. Craig and what one has is a situation where genetics may be the smoking gun (although the damage might occur after birth) but the trigger could be anything in a psychopath's own environment, and that could include becoming aware of the extent and effectiveness of violence which has been perpetrated in our societies by the left-wing terrorists for so many decades. That is something that Breivik must have become aware of as he assembled his hotch-potch of misunderstood, borrowed ideas.
It also seems to me that the many of the criminals involved in the recent civil disturbances have exhibited psychopathological symptoms. Indeed, it was commented upon in a very surprised way by many people that those involved in the criminality which occurred on British streets last week seemed not to be able or willing to care about the people they burnt out of their homes, or the people they beat up and robbed, or the people they murdered. However, it came as no surprise to me that many of the people rioting were psychopaths who usually lead reasonably normal lives. Some tiny spark, some feeble excuse, made them think that they ought to do something, anything, to get what they saw as rightfully theirs – their entitlement – and they too, just like Breivik, turned to the model par excellence which has been dangled in front of them for years as an effective way to get what they wanted: the terrorist violence of left-wing, and jihadist, politics. Theodore was quite correct when he wrote “the rioters in the news last week had a thwarted sense of entitlement ...” and that that sense of entitlement “has been assiduously cultivated by an alliance of intellectuals, governments and bureaucrats” for that is indeed the case.
Successive left-wing governments since World War II have pandered to the lowest dregs of society and encouraged their pathological desires and behaviours. The civil disturbances in British cities last week was the result of psychopaths taking what they felt was theirs by right and doing so by using the tools provided for them by the left: mayhem and violence.
Psychopathic behaviour is an inevitable wherever the left have destroyed society and its controls and protections. Romania is a good example of this. After the removal of communism we were all surprised by the complete lack of morality, compassion, empathy and charity we saw in such places as the orphanages and hospitals, government offices and police, military and civil servants. Quite simply, the left had destroyed all vestiges of decent human behaviour in Romania and that was something we saw time and time again as communism collapsed in country after country – people ruled by, or subjected to, left-wing ideology had lost all sense of morality and purpose and acted in ways that we could only describe as psychopathic. That is what has happened in Britain and throughout Europe as the left, by stealth, has advanced its agenda in our free countries.
It is an inescapable conclusion. The left have sown the wind and now they must reap the whirlwind (Book of Hosea).
Regrettably, so must we.