Breivik’s manifesto: what kind of a Rightist is he?

The whole thing sounded too “perfect” to be true, i.e. too in line with all the stereotypes of the Leftist Jewish media, right down to the blonde hair and blue eyes.  (Isn’t it bizarre, by the way, how much hostility they have toward blonde hair and blue eyes?  Where the hell does that come from?)  My first guess was that the guy was an intellectually isolated nut who just decided to call himself a “conservative” and a “fundamentalist” for the shock value, because those are the demon-figures in Norway’s popular culture.  (After all, orthodox/traditionalist/conservative Christians rarely call themselves “fundamentalists” anymore, that word having been successfully made toxic by the media.)  It would be rather like how the “neo-Nazis” in American prisons have no historical or intellectual connection to German National Socialism.  They’re whites who’ve banded together to form a rival gang against the black and hispanic gangs, and they’ve been told that whites banding together in an explicitly racial sense is a Nazi thing to do; hence the superficial existence of American Naziism.

It turns out that’s not what’s going on with Breivik.  Now that we have his manifesto, we know that he has put some serious thought into the relevant political and cultural questions.  What’s more, he seems to have a real intellectual connection to the anti-Muslim European Right, at least in the sense that he read some of the prominent blogs.  We see this not only by the references he drops, but even more by his concentrating on the same set of issues and talking points.  For example, most people didn’t think much when a Blair speech-writer admitted that Labour had deliberately set out to destroy Britain’s homogeneous culture by swamping it with immigrants, but for us conservatives it was a striking vindication of our worldview, and we talk about it a lot.  Sure enough, Breivik brings attention to it as well.

Kevin MacDonald has done excellent work going through the manifesto and highlighting the key parts.  Of multiculturalism, he says

Ideology of multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) is an anti-European hatideologi whose purpose is to destroy European culture, identity and Christianity in general. I equate making multiculturalism with the other hatideologiene: Nazism (anti-Jewish), communism (anti-individualism) and Islam (anti-Kafr).

This characterization of multiculturalism could have come from me (although I would quibble with his characterizations of Nazism, communism, and Islam).  His suggested strategy:

1. Have in place a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution (which will be the only newspaper that will support the Progress Party in 4 years). For believe me, the Progress Party is going to be sabotaged and torpedoed.  Their voter base of 35% will be “scared” down to 20%.

2. Develop an alternative to the violent extreme Norwegian Marxist organizations Blitz / SOS Racism / Red Youth. This can for example be done by supporting the development of SIOE. Conservatives dare not currently air their views on the street when they know that extreme Marxists will club them down. We can not accept that Labour subsidize these violent “Stoltenberg Art” that systematically terrorize political conservatives.

3. Working to gain control of 10-15 NGOs (kulturmarxists controls currently 10-15 while we only have 2-3).

4. Initiate a partnership with the conservative forces within the Norwegian Church. I know that the liberal forces within the European anti-Jihad movement (Bruce Bawer, among others, and some other liberals) will have a problem with this but the conservative forces within the church are actually one of our best allies. Our main opponents are not the Jihadists but the facilitators—namely multiculturalists.

Excellent strategy, a lot better than the one he actually ended up going with.  I believe the last sentence has the key to why he targetted fellow Norwegians rather than Muslims.  To him, Labour Party youth activists are not “Norwegian children”; they’re more like members of the Janissary Corps in training.  The Janissary’s in the Ottoman Empire, you’ll recall, were Christian children taken from their parents, trained and indoctrinated to be the Sultan’s elite force, a key caste in the system that oppressed their parents.  Today’s European Marxist parties, as Paul Gottfried has shown, have little to do with classical socialist/Marxist concerns about economic nationalization or workers’ advocacy.  Their core concern is mass third-world immigration, something that must be continued at all costs until the host cultures are eradicated.  Epidemics of immigrant-driven violent crime don’t bother them, because to them the white natives are legitimate prey.  Breivik was probably right to think that the teenagers he was gunning down were fanatical enemies of our civilization.  Of course, this shouldn’t detract from our sympathy for them.  They were invincibly ignorant.  They were only following what all their elders had told them was the virtuous path.

MacDonald is probably right to characterize the manifesto as coming from a Geert Wilder’s type conservative, which would make him a “pseudoconservative” by our classification scheme.  In particular, it’s been pointed out that

  1. He’s not a racialist.  He rejects white solidarity and believes anti-jihadism should operate solely at the level of culture and ideology.
  2. He’s not an antisemite.  In fact, he seems strongly Zionist.
  3. He’s not a philosophically traditionalist conservative.  Mark Richardson has pointed out that his theoretical influences are classical or modern liberals (Hobbes, Mill, Kant, Rorty).
  4. He’s not a patriarchist conservative if the following from Arthur at Oz Conservative is accurate:

“The remark by ABB that the mass media won’t mention to you: “we have to ensure
that we influence other culturally [sic] conservatives to take our anti-racist
pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought.” He also condemned the VB (Belgium)
and the English Defence League for “extremism”.

Not, of course, that any of these distinctions are going to help us at all.  Metternich is right; this is a catastrophe for the European Right; it’s going to trigger (or, rather, be an excuse for) a massive persecution.  As one commenter at Alternative Right put it

Champagne/whores/orgies tonight at SPLC/ADL headquarters!

It’s not fair, you say?  What about Muslim and Leftist violence, you say?  I say, the only thing that matters in a democracy is who controls the media.  Given that the enemy controls it, all they have to do is wait for useable events and then publicize them.  And it’s inevitable that useable events will occur.  No movement can screen its members perfectly.  (Or, rather, we’ll be able to screen perfectly when there are only a half dozen of us left.)  To me, what’s most frightening is that one is now tarred as a dangerous extremist if someone who’s once made a comment on your blog goes out and commits a terrorist act.  (So behave, you all.)  So, yes, we’re completely screwed now.  But we were screwed last week too, because we were in a situation where sooner or later something would happen to give the enemy an excuse to round us up.

16 Responses

  1. “Labour had deliberately set out to destroy Britain’s homogeneous culture by swamping it with immigrants”

    I referenced that ‘nose rubbing’ comment in an online conversation within the last few days.

    “He’s not an antisemite. In fact, he seems strongly Zionist.”

    If you see someone describing him as a Nazi then you can be sure they have not understood him at all.

    “But we were screwed last week too, because we were in a situation where sooner or later something would happen to give the enemy an excuse to round us up.”

    I was in a conversation quite recently where it was predicted that some ‘anti-jihadist’ type would commit a terrorist act, most likely in Europe, within three to five years. The only question mark was how isolated the incident would be.

    This predictability is what worries me most. I could never have foreseen that someone like McVeigh would take exception to Waco or that an environmentalist would attack the Discovery channel. This evil, however, is a response not to some idiosyncratic irritation, but to tensions that are felt extremely widely by many people. Indeed, as the references in the manifesto show: many people have been talking about them, in depth, for quite a while now. As the underlying tensions are not going away any time soon: how long until the next attack?

    One hope would be to convert the culturally Christian members of the ‘anti-jihad’ movement into religious Christians. Thus they would learn that you ‘never do evil to bring about good’ and that killing is most definitely an evil. Beyond that all it seems we can do is continue to try and live our own lives well and pray.

  2. […] post at An Aftenposten editorial all but calls Breivik a neo-Nazi. (Bonald and Kevin MacDonald have more on why this claim is absurd.) GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]

  3. This whole incident is extremely bizarre. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist it seems perfectly tailored to suit the ends of the Left.

  4. Does not seem bizarre to me: I and others I know were predicting an event like this (obviously none of the particular details). There is palpable tension in Europe that has led to someone going over the edge in a most dreadful manner.

  5. It’s positively eerie how well it suits their worldview. If this had been a movie, we’d all be laughing about how Leftist prejudices have created a bogeymay that bears no resemblance to their actual opponents. I was almost waiting to hear that this guy is also a member of the albino monk division of Opus Dei. When I first saw his picture, it reminded me of the evil gunman in “Die Hard” who gets shot in the end by the black cop (must be because of the long blonde hair). Not the tiniest deviation from their mental script, not even as small a deviation as having brown eyes. As you say, perfectly tailored.

  6. Also he was a Mason

  7. Nothing bizarre about it. Merely Jezebel’s opposer- the domineering male – coming into manifestation.

    For those who lack understanding of how spiritual principles work: Jezebel is the present all consuming mommy that all present so-called western nations/cultures are ruled by. Her symptoms are multiculturalism/liberalism/marxism/egalitarianism/homolove/all races are the same, etc, etc.

    Jezebel is a perversion of the True feminine sphere and as such, she is domineering female like a lesbian dyke. Her “answer” is a like dominant MALE. As she is “female anger”, her “answer” is male anger.

    Jezebel will not voluntarily give up her authority or be voted out of office. She must be “cast into a bed” (Rev. 2:22); (put to sleep), by and through the efforts of the dominant male who “slays her children with death” (Rev.2:23) , the beginnings of which are seen through the efforts of the shooter. “Cast into a bed” means being SILENCED.

    This will take some time as this incident is merely the first of many such to come. The people killed are not “innocent” in the eyes of the ONE in charge of all things.

    In ancient times, when conquerors subdued many peoples, one of the
    methods of their conquering was to kill all the children BEFORE THE

  8. I’ve just read his book. Many of the categories summarized above are inaccurate.

    He IS a hardcore racialist, in fact, a Nordicist. The core of his program is the “preservation of the Nordic genotype”.

    He is also very much a traditional patriarchist, calling explicitly for the return of a strong Patriarchy.

    And, you will no doubt smile to learn, he is calling for European Protestants to return to the Catholic Church! (just ribbing you there, friend)

  9. Sorry, just to be clear, he IS calling for Protestants to return to the Catholic Church. Just ribbing you in the sense that you would no doubt smile about it…

  10. Crap. It keeps getting worse. He doesn’t mention me, does he?

  11. I did a search over the PDF for both ‘bonald’ and ‘throne and altar’ and nothing was found.

    Justin, can you point to a link describing or quotes confirming his racist objectives? The other stuff you said I have heard, but that is new to me.

  12. […] of Anders Breivik.  You can find some “insights” from the Throne & Altar blog here and here.  My favorite sedevacantist, Joe Hargrave, has his thoughts here.  Seriously, this is […]

  13. No, he does not mention you. The closest he got was actually one of my linking partners, Vanishing American. I let the owner of that blog know via a comment, and the comment was deleted shortly thereafter. I haven’t had time to check, but I suspect the posts referenced were deleted as well. Nothing controversial at all really, just a discussion of the role of Christianity in his proposed movement. I plan to summarize what he says in that regard on my own blog.

  14. Stewart, on pg 1158 of his pdf, for example, he discusses “Solutions to prevent the extinction of the Nordic tribes and for implementation
    of conservative principles”. Pg 1161: “The reasoning behind conservative’s opposition to race-mixing and adoption of
    non-Europeans”. He does however, leave his movement open to non-Whites: “Know that we, the PCCTS, Knights Templar, are not a racist organisation. Individuals of all races, providing that they are Christian, can join and fight for the Knights Templar as Justiciar Knights” (pg. 1167).

  15. Stewart, one more: pg 1192 “Solutions to prevent the extinction of the Nordic genotypes”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: