It's difficult to comment on this situation. Breivik's actions outrage us all and because we don't understand the depth of his rage and hatred, it is easy to leap to the conclusion that he is mad - and he might well be.

Anti-Muslim attitudes exist across much of Western Europe and while the standard response is to see this as evidence of deep-seated racism, there is I think an additional explanation. Many European nations have fought for centuries to establish their independence and in the struggle have forged an understanding of their particular characteristics and attributes. Some of this might be heavily romanticised but national myth-making is a powerful force for social cohesion. Since WW2, much of this social cohesion has centred on a compact between citizens and government, in which citizens will pay high taxes and behave in accepted ways and governments will ensure they provide quality education, health and welfare systems 'from the cradle to the grave'.

Many Europeans now feel an almost existential anguish as they perceive immigrants, mainly Muslim, not participating in this social compact but challenging what it means to be French or German or Dutch or Norwegian in fundamental ways. Terms like multiculturalism simply add to the anguish as do lectures by politicians and bureaucrats about the virtues of tolerance. European governments need to recognise the depth of the anxiety felt by many of their citizens and respond accordingly.

Call him bad. Call him mad. Call him what you like.
Anders can see where current developments in his country is inevitably leading to and he loves his country enough to sacrifice himself. What he did is horrific. He believes in Norway for Norwegians. A man's home is his own and that of his family. He is not obliged to share it or surrender it to all who roll up asking to share it with him and his loved ones. He has a God-given right and duty to defend his right to his home and family.. This may be considered madness or badness to the interlopers and their misguided supporters. So be it.

"Is there a man so dead
Who never to himself has said
This is my own,my native land?

socratease

The European Left won't learn anything from this, learning is a creative process, Communists are incapable of creativity.
Breivik is their baby, there is no "Right" in European society, only degrees of Liberalism, he's been moulded by Liberalism not "fascism".
Breivik is also a liberator for dissenters of all persuasions, he's kicked violence beyond our reach and shown the postwar generations of Whites its immorality (thank the gods), he's shown that "something like this can happen" if we're tolerant of meddlers, provocateurs and psychopaths getting into the ears of our young people.
Will the Left now renounce political violence?
No they won't, that'd mean reinventing themselves, and as noted above, they're incapable of creativity, they can only destroy and suppress whatever challenges their world view.

Extending to what Senior Victorian said; Regarding social cohesion and relationship of the people and their method of conduct in society- it actually does very much impact the quality of life of the native inhabitants.

For example, if you live in a society where there are hardly any traffic lights or road markers- but a smooth, fast (and safe) flow of traffic even in peak hour because everyone on the road cooperates with each other and gives way- you have a system that works well for everyone, solely because all the people make it work and hold themselves responsible to it.
The second you get a large influx of people who are more selfish and refuse to hold themselves to the same courtesy and instead force their way, that road system turns into dysfunctional chaos- and the people are forced to abandon their system in exchange for a more restrictive system, solely to ensure the new arrivals are made to do the right thing.

Extend this to simple liberties of not locking your doors, wandering dark streets at night, or religious criticism, debate, satire and expression without fear of your safety- and you may well find yourself in the shoes of Europeans learning to adapt to live without these liberties- on the sole basis that some people they never invited felt like cashing in on their society, but didn't think much of what they were expected in return.

Exactly Hazza, what's motivating people?
Are there guys in Mogadishu who sit there saying "Those Norwegians need out help,I'm going to move to Norway and make it a better place! Yeah, just by being there on a permanent basis us Somalians will drive the country forward!"

Now reverse the roles, are there Norwegian guys sitting together in a cafe in Oslo saying, "We should get together and raise money to help the Somalians, hey I know! Let's set up a charity and we'll move over there and build them a school and a medical clinic!"

Which one rings true?

It's a silly question when you put it in that context.
Somalians want free association with Norwegians because they're going to get financial rewards out of the deal.
Norwegians want free association with Somalians so they can give them those financial rewards and make the world a better place.
That's what aid and asylum mean, liberating Brown people from pressing financial problems such as those experienced in refugee camps in Africa and Pakistan.
The issue of people actually coming to "The West" straight from the battlefields of Somalia or Afghanistan is virtually non existent, unless they're some militiaman or warlord who can pay to emigrate via normal channels they've all transited through many other jurisdictions before making landfall in Europe.
European citizenship is the goal,pressing financial problems are the motivation, they aren't allowed to work or receive benefits in Kenya and Pakistan so they either have to move on to the E.U. or go back home.

That is also quite true Jay of Melbourne; even for someone from Somalia to get to Europe requires passing through a fair few nations before even getting into Egypt, before either taking a boat, or continuing via land through Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey before getting into any EU country- and even then they continue traveling until they reach the place they actually wanted to go to all along (based on hearing stories about it back home and deciding not so much escaping THEIR country as making the journey to THAT country).

The only countries in the middle east that can claim any particularly proximity to Europe are Turkey and Lebanon- and the only countries that can even claim a direct route are those in North Africa- ignoring that it would take less than a quarter of the time and distance to enter a neighboring North-African country than it would to cross the entire Mediterranean.