Anders Breivik

The effect of Breivik’s actions on Geert Wilders and the PVV

The killings of Anders Breivik, although shocking by their sheer scale, are nothing new for Dutchmen: Holland is used to political killings since the murders of anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Islam-critic Theo van Gogh in 2004. It has long since lost its innocence after a period of self-preceived tolerance. The meteoric rise of Wilders since 2004 is another dimension in which the discussion of Breivik’s killings is taking place, because Breivik has mentioned Wilders 30 times in his manifesto. What has been said in the mainstream Dutch media sheds an interesting light on the impact of Breivik’s actions.

The moment it was clear that the Oslo attacks were the work of Breivik, Wilders sent out a twitter-message: “That the fight against islam is abused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. This fills me with disgust that the perpetrator refers to PVV and me in his manifesto.” The self-proclaimed intellectual newspaper NRC Handelsblad was quick to link the attacks with the right-wing intellectual discourse in their commentary on Monday July 25th: “Anders Behring Breivik is no fool, but an extremist. He knows his classics. The same philosophies that right-wing politicians craft their programs together.” The next day NRC and The Press stepped up their attack on Wilders by accussing him of ‘war-rhetoric’. Wilders replied by a new statement proclaiming: “We struggle in a democratric and non-violent way against further Islamization of our society and will continue to do that. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal.” Read more

Letter from Sweden: Fallout from Breivik

This appeared as a comment on a TOO article but has general interest. Ed.

I think many here have misunderstood why European nationalist parties have taken this much of the Zionist and neo-conservative position to heart. Firstly, ethnic nationalism is more or less failed for the moment – but may not be so in the near future, because the elites are losing power.

But for the moment there are very few successful ethnic nationalist parties in Europe. Those who have succeeded to some extent are the French National Front [which has taken a cultural position. Ed.], the British National Party (BNP) and possibly a couple of parties in Eastern Europe, such as Jobbik in Hungary and Ataka in Bulgaria.

Today, BNP has lost what had been gained in recent years, maybe because of internal struggles but also because they never took the important step of  “cleaning” itself from its history and therefore could not get access to middle class professionals. The situation has long been desperate for many nationalist parties.

So how could you make progress? Well, these “cultural-nationalist” parties studied the political climate and made the assessment that no one can achieve any progress if they do not adapt to the prevailing norms, which are mediated by the elite. The first thing they did was to “wash off” their history and rid themselves of those members who first built the parties. People with criminal backgrounds, a history of neo-Nazism, all religious radicals and conspiracy theorists had to leave the parties.

Those parties who were most successful at this were also the most successful in elections. After the Islamic terror attacks of 2001 these nationalist parties saw their chance to enter the establishment’s institutions. Read more

Breivik’s “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews”

The section of Anders Breivik’s 2083: A European Declaration of Independence titled “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews” focuses on Jewish issues. He is unsparing in his criticism of Hitler (the “great Satan”) and the National Socialists, blaming their defeat in WWII  for the rise of multiculturalism and European self-immolation. He makes a strong distinction between conservative Jewish nationalists and liberal Jews, arguing that only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans. Like several other important European rightists, he expresses strong support for Jewish nationalism, arguing that Hitler should have cooperated in creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and deporting the German Jews there. “The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.”

When the tides turned for the Nazis and the Russian campaign failed, they decided to massacre the Jews and thus further condemning the Germanic tribes and the conservative/nationalist ideology to hell… They knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for their tribes if they lost, yet they went ahead and completed the job. After WW2, the greatest anti-nationalist and anti-European propaganda campaign the world has ever seen was launched. And people like myself, and other cultural conservative leaders of today, are still suffering under this propaganda campaign because of that one man.

Breivik acknowledges that most German Jews were disloyal in Hitler’s time and estimates that 75% of European and American Jews favor “nation-wrecking” multiculturalism. He concludes that “we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP,” and claims that Jews are not the problem in Europe “with the exception of the UK and France” where 800,000 of Europe’s 1,000,000 Jews live. And he acknowledges that the US with its 6,000,000  “actually has a considerable Jewish problem.” Read more

Anders Breivik as a Nordicist

It’s been noted, particularly on the racialist, paleoconservative right, that Anders Breivik’s ideas closely resemble the ideas usually associated with the neoconservatives: Strong support for Israel and opposition to Islam. For example, in his book, Breivik cites Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and he includes several excellent articles from the Gates of Vienna site. My article, based on his web comments, may have contributed to this perception.

However, unlike the great majority of neoconservatives who are focused mainly on supporting  Israel and for whom any other conservative attitude is a position of convenience, Breivik comes across as someone who is mainly motivated to preserve Europeans and their culture. (For example, neocons are typically very soft on immigration (see here, p. 26 and passim, including Muslim immigration; Breivik includes an article  by “Fjordman” that questions neocon Daniel Pipes‘ idea of promoting moderate Islam.)

And, despite condemning cultural Marxism as the main villain, in the end Breivik realizes that it’s a biological battle. In his book, Breivik comments several times on the eventual extinction of the  Nordics if something isn’t done. Breivik’s view is that a poisonous, maladaptive culture may result in evolutionary death just as surely as a genocidal military invasion. His ideas imply what I take to be correct, that evolutionary conflict is now mainly taking place in the arena of culture—the view of The Culture of Critique. Because cultural Marxism has resulted in natural selection against the Nordics, Breivik views it as a racist ideology of hatred toward Nordics: “Multiculturalism IS as evil and racist as Nazism and as brutal as Stalinism.” This strongly suggests that his web comments where he condemns ethnocentrism are strategic and don’t go to the heart of his thinking. Read more

Jennifer Rubin’s Self-Serving Analysis of the Norwegian Terror

Award for the most idiotic (not to mention self-serving) comment on the events in Norway goes to Jennifer Rubin, a neocon publicist with access to the elite media (and a remarkably low threshold for detecting anti-Semitism). Writing in her blog for the Washington Post (“Norway Bombing“), she quotes Thomas Joscelyn writing in (surprise!) The Weekly Standard:

We don’t know if al Qaeda was directly responsible for today’s events, but in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra. Prominent jihadists have already claimed online that the attack is payback for Norway’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

She goes on to write “there is a specific jihadist connection here: ‘Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam – a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq – in late 2001.’”

Her take home point is that U.S. has to recommit to fighting jihadists.

But we know now that Breivik was a strong supporter of Rubin’s favorite country, Israel, and would be more than happy to engage in jihad against the Muslims. Amazingly, even Rubin’s critics haven’t pointed this out (James Fallows and Steve Clemons in The Atlantic blog). Clemons wrote that he “appears to be a right wing, Christian fundamentalist”—a hopelessly inadequate description. Breivik comes across as someone who sees a positive role for historic Christianity in combating Islam but not as a devout believer.

Despite plenty of opportunity, Rubin has not issued a retraction.

The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik

A quite clear picture of Anders Behring Breivik emerges from this collection of his online posts. I thought the following quotes were reasonably representative; they are edited slightly for English usage.

These snippets portray a Geert Wilders-type of cultural conservative, very opposed to ethnocentrism as a strategy, very positive about the Vienna School, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam—what in the U.S. is called a neoconservative. Breivik sees Islam as eventually taking over Europe via differential fertility if nothing is done, noting historical data on other areas (e.g., Turkey, Lebanon, Kosovo). Based on his reading of history, he believes that the triumph of Islam would unleash horrific repression and violence against Europeans and against all manifestations of traditional European culture. It would be the end of European civilization based on Christianity and ordered liberty.

He also has a 1500-page book, titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, suggesting his actions were intended to call attention to himself as a way of publicizing the book and maximizing its impact. See also the (very powerful) video below which is based on the ideas of the book. The video images strongly suggest that he identifies with historical figures like Charles Martel who fought to prevent the Muslim conquest of Europe in previous centuries. Note the many photos of Christian knights battling Islam (suggesting he sees Christianity [correctly] as a historically powerful force for the preservation of Europe rather than mainly about religious faith) and (at the very end) photos of himself in military dress and armed with automatic weapons.

In general, it must be said that he is a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, gaining control of NGOs. and developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs). (8/31/2016: Note to leftist idiots who quote from the previous passage [but leave out Breivik’s specific suggestions for strategy]: This is not an endorsement of his actions.) (Parenthetically, during a recent lecture tour of Sweden, I was struck by the elaborate security procedures that were taken out of fear of physical beatings by “Communists,” described to me as typically the children of leftist elites. It is no exaggeration to say that racially conscious Scandinavians feel physically intimidated.) It could well be that Breivik’s silence on Jewish hostility toward Europe and the West and his rejection of ethnocentrism (see here) are motivated by his strategic sense.  Read more

The Norwegian horror

The story line coming out of the Norwegian attacks is that the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, was oriented to the political right. National police chief Sveinung Sponheim stated that the suspected gunman’s Internet postings “suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen.” There is also talk about links to Christian fundamentalism.

We’ll see. But what is shocking about this is the killing of at least 80 young Norwegians. As one analyst noted, “The tactics and actuality of these attacks would be quite striking if carried out by a domestic far-right actor — trying to kill Norway’s PM is one thing and not surprising from any extremist elements, but killing average citizens in this manner is very, very unusual indeed for far-right/supremacists, and certainly for ones in Europe.”

Indeed. Killing people, and especially young people, of one’s own racial/ethnic group is not at all what one expects from someone who is motivated by ethnic nationalism.  This is the case despite the fact that the victims were attending a youth camp for the center-left Labor Party. Such young people are simply not appropriate targets; their killing will not be seen by the vast majority of Europeans as legitimate. There is a natural revulsion against the killing of the young, particularly of one’s own ethnic group.

The bottom line is that if the right-wing connection turns out to be correct, this action will certainly not help the cause of those seeking to reclaim Europe for its traditional peoples.