I saw this little jewel on TOWLEROAD a while back

I’ve let this one steep a while since I wasn’t really sure that I wanted to be quite this out there. But I’m thinking aww what the hell?

I’ve gotta file this one under the WTF category…

Friend of Norwegian Mass Murderer Anders Behring Breivik Thought He Was Gay, Closeted

Read more: TOWLEROAD

I have to ask what does this guys sexuality have to do with the fact that he’s on trial for killing 77 people?

This guy has confessed to committing the murders but claims that he did so to protect his beloved homeland and culture.

The piece also comments on the fact that Breivik had a nose job “so he could have a more “Aryan” nose”. So what?

I’m not sure what the attorneys in Norway are trying to prove.

Breivik, had he been the leader of a revolution that won… would be described as a liberator and hero to his people for protecting the purity of Norwegian culture.

However since Breivik was acting alone he’s perceived as a nutcase and murderer. Now it looks as if the Norwegian court is trying to marginalize the crime and his stated reasons for committing it by painting him as a vain, closeted homosexual who acted out.

This suggests to me that perhaps Norwegian society isn’t ready to consider that they may have a larger problem…

They’re hoping that the Breivik case is a “one-off“.  Perhaps it is.

But what if it’s not?

Lets look at this another way…

What kind of social pressure, cultural change, and abuse does it take for a vain, closeted homosexual to make, plant and detonate a bomb, or pick up a rifle and start shooting people?

The Norwegians had a bit of civil unrest several years ago because one of their cartoonists drew a picture. That picture while protected under Norwegian free speech rights still had to be apologized for. The artist still had to flee his home. The Norwegian government, instead of expelling those who sought to deny the artist his rights made concessions to a radical minority.

The imposition of foreign cultural taboos on a society will inevitably result in unrest. 

Vivid examples include Palastine, and Iran.

The Shah of Iran was deposed at least in part because his policies were too progressive, and  too Western. Apparently the religious infrastructure of the country perceiving a threat to their tradition, power and culture incited a coup. The ruling government then exiled all foreigners, nationalized all the resources and descended into an almost isolationist (from the West except for oil sales) period.

The Palestinians resented in 1947 and do to this day control being imposed on them by the West in the creation of the State of Israel.

I’m not suggesting that Breivik was in any way correct in what he did.

What I’m saying is that perhaps Norway should look more carefully at it’s rising nationalism and the factors that are contributing to it.

Otherwise the next  Breivik will organize an insurgent movement. Such a movement could easily be aimed at focusing Norways’ rising nationalism against the Norwegian government and all people that are perceived as a threat to Norwegian cultural values.