If people really are cogs and all of us are easily replaceable, then Brevik's crime would have no impact beyond the personal tragedies he inflicted. However, if individuals of talent cannot be easily replaced, then Brevik very likely altered the path that Norway is now following and will follow in the future, for those youth leaders won't be around to lead and their substitutes won't be as effective or as charismatic or as influential.
Brevik thought he was at war. Was his crime an effective strike at his enemy or wasn't it?
Terrorists want to be effective. Don't they? They usually have a goal in mind. Don't they?
Was Brevik effective or not?
Note, the question I ask you doesn't have any lines above or below it, it's a simple 5 word question so it's impossible to read between the lines. I'm not asking you whether what Brevik did was moral, whether it should be legal, whether he should have done some things differently, or anything else you might imagine that I'm asking you. Brevik murdered the most promising stars of the rising socialist generation in Norway. Did he damage that movement or not? Remember, he had some goal in mind when he committed his act of terror.
"If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
Break, By Three days grace
Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016