...the kicker was your quote from another blog which you described as being "apt"
as an explanation.. or more to the point, as an excuse:
"...perhaps he's one of those extremely "pessimistic conservatives." You say "his fellow Norwegians." Perhaps to him they weren't his people anymore. Since the West is declining and veering towards collapse, why not hasten the decline? It's similar to Roissy going after all of the bar skanks and "gaming" low-quality women and sluts instead of persevering in goodness despite all of the incredible troubles around us. Perhaps he sees those young people and teenagers as too late to save or no longer his people. How could they be "his people" if they continually believe in concepts like multiculturalism, diversity and whatnot? How could "his fellow Norwegians" do this to their own country? To him perhaps they were traitors. What he did was terrible but it's not hard to understand what would lead to this monstrous act."
a) the quote I described as "apt" ends with calling the attack "monstrous".
b) a description can be "apt" without agreeing with the thing being described. "Apt" means it's a good diagnosis (in this case, of a disease). Neither I, nor Lawrence Auster whom I quoted, gave any indication that we are justifying the act. In fact, we give indications of just the opposite. A discerning reader would easily tell from my blog post that I in fact consider such a motivation ("Theory #1" among the three theories I explore concerning the mass-murderer's motivations) to be a bad thing ("quasi-Gnostic alienation" which, as is obvious from my post, I worry has infected the anti-Islam movement as one strand), not a good thing.
