Bitter criticism of Islam, a "grass-roots" profile, islamophobia: that's what "experts" immediately point to in the wake of the disaster created by a so-called "Christian extremist" (or, in contradiction, a freemason). Compared with the Oslo bombing and the Utøya killings, a small anti-christian killing in Egypt or elsewhere is explained simply as an act of an unbalanced lunatic, or as the effect of social tension caused by the "American-Zionist" masters of the universe. That is the iniquitous model of the bankable explanation presented to us.
Without reducing the inexcusable aspect of his acts, let's focus on the circumstances in which Anders Behring Breivik planned his crime. Was he a "lone wolf", like the Oklahoma City bomber or the failed assassin of Chirac? Is he a white knight trying to stop the supposed implosion of a derailed world by shooting at the heart of the future elite? Let's follow this hypothesis for a while, and hence reject that he was pathologically affected. His rage, fed by video games, may also have been caused by the lack of real debate on the radical changes caused by a multiculturalism.
If there were a real counter-power, symbolic or spiritual, enabling a critical debate on the role of Islam in the world without being accused as a racist, maybe this inexcusable and vile act would have taken another form? Nobody knows. But please, do not put all the blame on islamo-criticism gone wrong. This criticism is either absent in the mainstream, or demonized. The thousands and thousands of people murdered by (radical) Islam should weigh heavier than these 92 deaths.
So, let us remain rational and ask ourselves why such extreme acts are perpetrated. Don't put the blame solely on populism and its derivatives. Lacking real debate, society is forced, even raped, to the point of disappearing, dissolving the people and replacing it with another one - and whoever refuses is treated as a racist. If this continues, we should not be surprised to see other tragedies occur.