The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik


by Kevin MacDonald
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/?p=9198

Note by Sean GabbI have copied this in full from The Occidental Observer site because Professor MacDonald’s posting seems to be the longest and most thorough analysis of what drove Mr Breivik to commit his crimes – always assuming he did indeed commit them. He has actually read the killer’s book, and this lets him say a great deal more than the mainstream media, which appears to take its entire coverage from statements by the Norwegian police.

For the record, the Libertarian Alliance deplores these killings and has no sympathy whatever with the ideology that may have been used to justify them. Nor do we endorse any claim that Professor MacDonald may derive from his analysis. At the same time, we thank him for having read and summarised an 1100 page book that has been made important by the the alleged deeds of its author.

It should go without further elaboration that we oppose all demands for gun control, which is nothing more than victim disarmament, and we oppose all demands for censorship of supposedly “hateful” ideas. Here begins the analysis by Kevin MacDonald:-

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, pro-Israel, and also very hostile toward Muslims. 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).

He also has a 1100-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). (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.” 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.

In the excerpts below, note his hostility toward the Frankfurt School which he identifies with cultural Marxism, but never mentions the anti-European, anti-Christian attitudes that pervade Jewish elites in the West—as noted in Paul Gottfried’s recent vdare article and repeatedly emphasized here. He notes the failure of “ethnocentric strategies” but ignores the role of Jewish intellectual elites in pathologizing expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans since WWII (particularly the Frankfurt School) and in combating the scientific basis of the legitimacy of racial/ethnic interests (Boasian anthropology; the video identifies cultural Marxism with cultural relativism, the main agenda of the Boasian school). He is also highly critical of the media (without noting that the Norwegian media is controlled by a Swedish/Jewish family). In my experience, racially conscious Scandinavians are quite aware of Jewish media control. Again, these may be tactical moves, although I rather doubt it.

In any case, he is certainly right in characterizing multiculturalism as an ideology of hate. Note particularly his anger at the action of the Labour Partyin England in opening the gates of immigration in order “to humiliate the right-wing opponents of immigration.” As he notes in several places, multiculturalism is hatred of Europeans and their culture masked by humanism.

It remains to be seen what the long term effect of his actions will be. There is certainly great revulsion at the murder of young people. However, I suppose it is possible that in the long run European elites will understand that the glorious multicultural future will not be attained without a great deal of bloodletting (including themselves and, as in this case, their children) and realize they will have to change their ways. Indeed, one of his insights is that in the long run “the multi-cultural neocolonial regimes will either have imploded or have become very Stalinist.” I agree.

The fear is that Breivik’s actions are more likely to result in Stalinism in the immediate future than to lessen the grip of the forces of evil.

Anders Behring Breivik:

50 years of efforts by the ethnocentric organizations / movements (from 1960-2009) have failed completely. We know this and further focus, illumination of these strategies will only be counter-productive and potentially very damaging to the current Norwegian and European cultural conservative movement.

Ethnocentric movements like the BNP and National Front are not successful and will never be able to get over 10% support (GDP [i.e., the BNP] 5%, the UN [National Front] has 7%). One can not fight racism (multikulti) with racism. Ethnocentrism is therefore the complete opposite of what we want to achieve.

We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments based on anti-racism.

This has proven to be very successful which explains why the modern cultural conservative movement / parties that use the Vienna School of Thought is so successful: the Progress Party, Geert Wilders, document and many others.

Ethnocentrism is contrary to the principles of the Vienna School of Thought which is why you surely have been censored in the past.

I have worked several years for the Progress Party and guarantee you that the Progress Party had less than 10% support if they had not chosen Vienna School of Thought as an ideological basis.

Yes, we will defeat the multiculturalism / kulturmarxisme finally (as this is very discriminatory and racist). But we must do it in the correct ideological grounds. …

I got the impression that the younger generations in Oslo do not quite manage to see the political context here. They see the racist attack but do not fully understand that this is Jihad (political / cultural attacks). They repay what they perceive as racism with racism.

My hope is that they will see the cultural / political context, but one should not ignore the fact that the new generations of young people are going in the direction of ethnocentrism.

Young people need solutions, and currently there are no anti-racist youth cultural conservative options. Some people choose the options that exist, that is, the ethnocentric. …

I have only been politically active for 13 years. I am førstegenerasjonsdhimmi (Generation Y). I was active in the Oslo FrP / FpU in the first 6-7 years (in the cultural conservatives + laissez faire capitalist / liberal camp) and contributed to the Progress Party’s success before I stopped. I felt my time was better spent helping to develop / promote the political doctrines abroad especially British, German, French, American). I ran a business a few years while I studied and earned a few million so I could finance a inntektsløs politically active life. I now use these funds to be able to work full time to further develop / promote the Vienna Academy (Vienna School of Thought) that Fjordman, Bat Yeor, Spencer + many others have already contributed so much to. The last three years I worked full time as a cultural conservative working to help further develop / promote these political doctrines further.

Anyway, I consider the future consolidation of the cultural conservative forces on all seven fronts as the most important in Norway and in all Western European countries. It is essential that we work to ensure that all these 7 fronts using the Vienna School of Thought, or at least parts of the grunlag for 20-70 year-struggle that lies in front of us.

The book is called, by the way 2083 and is in English, 1100 pages).

To sums up the Vienna school of thought:

- Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)
– Against Islamization
– Anti-racist
– Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)
– Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries
– Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity
– To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)
– Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists

The Frankfurt School (kulturmarxisme) is a very ambitious unofficial ideology (and quite unknown to most); they have succeeded in most areas (except to smash capitalism, European Christianity and European identity, traditions, culture). The Vienna school is more a defense against this where we often use the Marxists’ own creations against them (sexual liberation, feminism, liberalism, anti-racism, anti-autoriære arguments).

The Vienna School of Thought is far from a complete ideology but consists of principles and ideas that are constantly under development. …

There is not necessarily a very big difference between controllers and dominators. The common denominators in all historical case are dhimmitude + demographic warfare. Are non-Muslims on Furuset, Holmlia [areas of Oslo] today dhimmis? Yes, of course they are. Why do you think they systematically choose to move [away]?

Why do you think Furuset, Holmlia and other areas in Oslo will soon be emptied of non-Muslims? Enklaviseringen in Oslo East continues slowly but surely every day.

For those words must have it with a teaspoon (this may be fine with a small demographic history reminder now and then):

Kosovo demographical development [1]:

1900 40% Islam
1913 50%
1925 60%
1948 72%
1971 79%
1981 85%
2008 93%

Source:

1. http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/011.shtml#6

Lebanon demographical development – (Christian/Muslim pop)[1]:

1911 – 21% Islam
1921 – 45%
1932 – 49%
1943 – 48%
1970 – 58% (Civil war 1975–1990 started when Islam reached 60%)
1990 – 65% (Christians lost the war)
2008 – 75%

Source:

1. Tomass Mark, Game theory with instrumentally irrational players: A Case Study of Civil War and Sectarian Cleansing, Journal of Economic Issues, Lincoln; June 1997.

Bethlehem

Source 1

1948 85% Christians[1]
2006 12% Christians[1]

Source 2

1948 – 60% Christians[2]
1983 – 20% Christians[2]

Source:

1. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23696_Christmas_Disappears_from_Bethlehem&only
2. http://www.danielpipes.org/1050/disappearing-christians-in-the-middle-east
3. http://www.danielpipes.org/1050/disappearing-christians-in-the-middle-east

Anatolia (Turkey)

1300 – 99% Christians
1450 – 90% (3 years before the fall of Constantinople)
1600 – 55%
1850 – 35% (Genocide/forceful conversions intensifies)
1900 – 20%
1920 – 15%
1945 – 6% (Focus shifts to persecution of Muslim Kurds)
1980 – 3%
2009 – 1%

1. http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html
2. See all sources from Historic Balkan and Anatolia demographics

Syria [1]

1920 – 33% Christians
2007 – 10% (would be less than 5% if it weren’t for Christian immigration from Iraq).

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mandate_of_Syria.png
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

Pakistan (Hindu/Muslim population) [1]

1941 – 25% Hindus
1948 – 17%
1991 – 1,5%
2007 – 1%

Bangladesh (Hindu/Muslim population) [1]

1941 – 30% Hindus
1948 – 25%
1971 – 15%
1991 – 10%
2007 – 8%

2008 – Numbers and percentages of Muslims in many European cities (legal/illegal including city suburbs)[1][2][3]:

Marseilles 38%
Malmö 35%
Brussels 35%
Amsterdam 30%
Stockholm 20%
London 20%
Paris 20%
Oslo 20%
Moscow 16-20%
Berlin 18%
The Hague 17%
Copenhagen 17%
Utrecht 15%
Rotterdam 15%
Antwerp 15%
Hamburg 15%

Sources:

1. http://www.globalpolitician.com/24799-europe
2. http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/muslim-demographics/
3. Indymedia.be notes that Brussels is 25.5% Muslim

Hva er så fellesnevneren i alle disse historiske tilfellene?

Islam + dhimmitude + demografisk krigføring [demographic
warfare] (Jihad)…

This is only the beginning of a protracted campaign of psychological warfare against the Swiss people. The worst of all, it works very effectively, as we saw in Austria a few years ago. The Swiss people will succumb to demonization, as Østerikerne and Serbs before them.

The fact that cultural Marxism controls the Euro / U.S. MSM, 95% of NGOs and 80% of the political parties is perhaps the main reason that we must expect to struggle with multiculturalism (kulturmarxisme) and the Islamization of at least 20-70 years.

Until this happens, the Hårstad points out further polarization between kulturmarxistene (elites) and the cultural conservatives (the people). Muslims make today 20-25% of the Oslo and similar areas in other European capitals. 50-60% is the magic enklaviseringsgrensen and there are several cities that gradually approach this. Marseilles is the worst example in Western Europe at the moment with 38% Muslims. The city will have a Muslim majority within 20 years. It is thus conceivable that the battle for Islam’s future in Europe will unfold in France within 20 years. Perhaps the consequence will be that France breaks out of the nåværeden U.S. / Euro dominated multiculturalism wonderful world order and seeks a new political alliance with Russia and some other mini-nations (hopefully followed by several European nations).

20 years earlier, my bet (70 years maximum). So change will come, guaranteed, we just have to be a little patient. …

We know by the way all of what happened to the Christians Marxists in Lebanon. Lebanon was once a Christian country (80% in 1911). When the Muslims were in majority in 1970 (an increase of 40% in just 60 years), they declared war. The reason that they were in that situation was due to the Marxist appeasement policy (they allowed demographic warfare). Marxists thought that they would get an extra special dhimmi status, which of course did not happen. There are now fewer than 25% Christians in Lebanon and even the Christian Marxists are living in a difficult situation. Do you really think you will get a special dhimmi status in few decades in Western Europe when all the historical examples show that Christians Marxists being stabbed in the back end again and again? …

Most people here have nothing against Muslims in general, Muslims who do not follow the Quran that is. It is the political doctrine of Islam is the problem.

The problem is that key Islamic concepts such as al-taqiyya and naskh (Quranic abrogation) makes it more or less impossible to distinguish “moderate Muslims” (individuals who do not follow the Quran) from orthodox Muslims. …

Mini-nations such as Norway have never pursued an independent, sovereign foreign policy.

They, however, have always followed the big three European heavyweights — France, UK, Germany, to the letter. In other words, Norway has always copied these heavyweights and will always do so.

It is like comparing Belarus and Russia. We will always be Belarus, and Russia is our three tigers.

The UK is no different from Germany and France. They have all chosen multiculturalism. The fact that the UK is wary of the EU is not about multikulti but more motivated by the idea hat the UK will continue to have a special relationship with the U.S. (which is also 100% multikulti).

The only “Western” nations that refused to implement multikulti are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and partly Finland.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been protected from the EU / US ‘s witch hunt because they are not Europeans.

If they had been Europeans, they would have been demonized as Nazis, fascists and racists.

Why Norway is “more European” than the EU has something to do with “Little Man Syndrome”. It can be likened to “converts to Islam.” They are often much more fundamentalist than even conservative Arab Muslims because they themselves feel they have much to prove (the “Little Man Syndrome”)….

Before one at all can begin to discuss [the Arab-Israeli] conflict, one must first agree on the fundamental truths of Islam’s political doctrine.

Most people here have great insight on key Muslim concepts like al-taqiiya (political deceit), naskh (Quranic abrogation) and Jihad. The problem is that kulturmarxists refuses to recognize these concepts.

They can not recognize these key Muslim concepts. For if they do so, it erodes the primary argument that Israel is a “racist state” and that this is a race war (Israelis vs. Arabs) and not defense against Jihad (Kafr vs. Ummah).

The cultural Marxists choose to ignore the fact that there are 40 different Jihad Fronts (wars) throughout the world. For them, Jihad does not exist. For them, these40 ethnic fronts (40 race wars) have nothing to do with Islam. …

It is wonderful to reflect on the fact that multiculturalism is a self-destructive ideology. The European cultural conservative movement is small at the moment, but we are growing every day. And within 70 years, it’s time for regime change in Europe. At that point, the multi-cultural neo colonial regimes will either have imploded or have become very Stalinist.

Before that, we must focus on the following:

1. Creating a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution
2. Regaining control of several NGOs
3. Develop and consolidate the cultural conservative intellectual movement
4. Build an “EDL” [English Defense League] type of youth….

The problem is that many kulturmarxists actually care very little about religious freedom and human rights. They are driven by contempt and hatred for the cultural conservatives, for European cultures, etc. Many are hiding behind the false doctrines of human rights and religious freedom as they serve as the perfect obfuscation of their true motives.

Where have they been for the past 20 years with regard to criticism of Islam? Why have they been totally absent in this area? They have however, spent much of their time attacking Christianity …

It is very difficult to deal with individuals who deliberately use deception to advance their agenda. Kulturmarxism has for 40 years been hiding behind humanistic principles when their real agenda was to crush the European tradition, culture, identity and sovereignty of nations. All in the name of human rights …

You cannot have a dialogue if one side is deliberately lying, again and again. …

National Socialism has always been an extreme left ideology. Then why do they try constantly to strategically place it on the right?…

Funny to see every single European cultural Marxist “foam around the mouth” of hatred against Denmark and Italy—the only Western European countries that have a hint of wise leadership. …

People must learn what multiculturalism’s wonderful doctrines will do to Europe:

Systematic breakdown:

- European Christianity
– European tradition
– European Cultures
– European (national) identity
– Sovereignty

Of course, it is known that kulturmarxistene and humanists in Europe think they are going to reform Islam. But they will fail like all before them have. For our part, the cultural conservatives and anti-Marxist liberal, must focus on the basic problem: multiculturalism (kulturmarxisme) and how to combat this hate ideology. …

Four important tasks we have to work on the next twenty years are the following:

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.

[Parenthetically, during a recent lecture tour of Sweden, I was
struck by the fact that elaborate security procedures were taken
out of fear of physical beatings by extreme leftists.]

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.

A nightmare scenario as I see it is if multiculturalists do an “Ataturk” in Western Europe. The result would be a long and painful death for Europe, as in Lebanon. … A Muslim population can restrain itself under an authoritarian regime to demand Sharia 100 years (or more) in the future as soon as the possibility presents itself. This ability for continued Islamic demographic warfare is going to end in disaster. …

Labour wants mass immigration to engineer multicultural UK, says former Blair and Straw adviser.

Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.

This proves therefore that some of the motivation for mass immigration is not based on humanism (a cloak) but more due to direct hatred of people with conservative values like us, the cultural conservatives. A large part of them hate all Europeans and want to destroy Europe through multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology designed to destroy European culture / traditions, identity, Christianity and national sovereignty. The goal is a utopian Marxistist superstate. To accomplish this, the first all European culture must be annihilated. Of course there are genuine humanists (who are suicidally naive) but I suspect that a larger proportion of them are cultural Marxists (multiculturalists) with hateful intentions. …

We should immediately work towards joint establishment of a cultural conservative major newspaper (paper / online national distribution).

I know many of the Progress Party and know that there are strong forces there that want to develop “Progress,” the Progress Party newspaper. I also know of several cultural conservative investors.

What about working to consolidate the Progress of document (may idag.no?) + Get funding from strategic investors?

Call the newspaper: “Conservative” as the only cultural conservative media company in Norway. …

Primary Doctrines:

Critical of multiculturalism (Anti-kulturmarxistisk)
Anti-racist
Pro Progress Party (maybe right)
Pro Israel (+ support for Armenia, Christian Copts / Maronite / Assyriere, cultural conservative Indians, support for the establishment of a Christian state in Biafra, Southern Nigeria and support to the establishment of a Christian state in Sudan, support for Russian / Thailand / Philippines / China + fighting Jihad)
Anti-UN
Anti-EU
Critical of kulturmarxistiske media (all)
Pro free market
Pro Christian …

Kulturmarxistene managed to bargain crucial popular platforms that secured them victory:

- Sexual Liberation (weakening of the church / morals / patriarchy / nuclear family / birth rates)

- Feminism — positive and negative effects (weakening of the church / patriarchy / nuclear family / birth rates)

- Rights of workers — positive aspects

- Drug / alcohol / party of liberation (weakening of the nuclear family / moral / birth rates)

- Multi-Culturalism—sold in as the introduction of exciting offers / food / experiences (negative aspects: mass immigration, Islam, ghettofication-> enklavisering, crime-murder / rape / robbery / violence, weakening of the identity / culture / unit / nation etc.. )

Too much of these elements (with a few exceptions) will help to draw us towards a Marxist utopia (chaos).

The only pragmatic we can do is work on cultural conservative consolidation in the next 10/20/30/40 year so that we can avail ourselves of the window that will surely open up (Fjord Man scenario.) …

Four weeks of Jihad in Gøteborg, Sweden. European media companies are refusing to report. This case and the Muslim riots in United Kingdom (also categorically ignored by 90% of journalists) could have influenced the Norwegian election. How can a democracy work when 98% of Western European journalists openly sympathize with “cultural Marxism”? These deliberate “media blackouts” are authoritarian in nature. …

The problem is that the assumptions for the discussion is not present in Norway and Western Europe. We, the cultural conservatives, is already being branded as fascists / racists / Nazis of the political and media establishment because we dare to criticize multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) which is totally unacceptable. It is as bad as the persecution of the Jews for 30 years or under the Inquisition. No / very few thus wishes to share the solution-oriented ideas / concepts in an open forum at this stage as this can help to stigmatize people further in the future. …

The main focus should be on an intellectual platform consolidation of European cultural conservative organizations / individuals. This alliance should have as its main focus is to de-legitimizing multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) of the “European ideology of hate” it actually is. Its purpose (or indirect result) is known to completely destroy western civilization, nation-states, Western culture / norms / traditions, Christianity – European / Norwegian identity. …

I encourage you to read books that explain the ideology multiculturalism, Frankfurt School and its origin. You can for example start with the book “Defeating Eurabia”.

The main problem in Western Europe is that there is only one accepted alternative, namely PC (PC = cultural Marxism / multiculturalism).

Those who dare to criticize multiculturalism (and supporting cultural conservative views) are now branded as fascists / Nazis / racists. The problem is that the doctrines which form the basis of political correctness will not or can allow alternative ideas and are thus very intolerant.

Progress Party is a victim of this intolerance. …

The question you should ask yourself is, if cultural differences were too great for the Christian Norwegians and Swedes Christians could live together, how can we expect the Norwegians and Somalis can live together peacefully?

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).

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan refused to implement multiculturalism (like the three the only Western country that still has monokulturalisme). They argued that “societal Cohesion” is synonymous with harmony within a society. They still see with amazement at this strange European experiment. …

Such cases must be considered together with similar cases where the media consistently ignores issues related to Muslim riots.

All remember the July riots in Marseilles and other French cities where the media were instructed not to report the news.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/media-blackout-violence-in-france.html

One can only wonder how many riots have been in France or other countries that we have never heard of. It is in the process of developing a trend in Western Europe where there is full acceptance that the media can suppressing such cases.

Estimated damage from the July riots in France: 800-1500 burnt-out cars, dozens of buildings burnt out, several people injured (including police officers). Not a single article in the MSM. I called both TV2 and NRK but they thought it was not “news worthy” … Maybe not so strange when 90-95% of all European journalists are in favor of multiculturalism and do not want to contribute to the injury “integration process” by conveying the truth.

This is a very frightening development and document further how the media serves as propaganda machinery to multiculturalism seats.

The orders of “media blackout” have been strictly applied. Le Monde refused to respond, citing “ministerial instructions.” “Yesterday morning, every journalist who came, even for the smallest piece of news, to the firemen, or gendarmes or police, heard the same answer: ‘No fires’. In fact, the truth is quite different. Some of those we questioned admitted under their breath: ‘We cannot say anything about the fires. We have received orders.” In Lyons, the daily Le Progrès reports the same blackout: “Orders not to speak to the press were given to firemen, gendarmes and police.” …

I strongly doubt that your theory is correct. The whole conflict between the BNP and EDL started with a change of leadership in the EDL for a few months ago. They threw out the racist and denounced the BNP. They chose instead SIOE’s ideological basis that is more or less mainstream view on the right side in Western Europe now (Vienna School of Thought).

Nick [Griffin] was very offended and began to demonize the EDL. Although they are now attacking each other, they don’t compete at all as these are two quite different fronts. 90% of all votes in the EDL continued BNP (since this is the only alternative to multikulti in the UK) and 90% of BNP support the EDL regardless of what Nick thinks. …

The tactics of the EDL are now out to “entice” an overreaction from Jihad Youth / Extreme-Marxists—something they have succeeded in several times already. The reaction has been repeatedly shown on the news which has boosted the EDL. This has also benefited BNP. Win-Win for both.

But I must say I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown. This has to do with smart tactical choice by management.

The EDL is an example and a Norwegian version is the only way to prevent Flash / SOS to harass Norwegian cultural conservatives from other fronts. Creating a Norwegian EDL should be No. 3 on the agenda after we have started up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution.

The agenda of the Norwegian cultural conservative movement over the next 5 years therefore consists of the following:

1. Newspaper with national distribution
2. Working for the control of several NGOs
3. Norwegian EDL

About these ads

55 responses to “The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik

  1. Yes, I have downloaded his manifesto and read parts – it is clear that he is all over the place ideologically. A real nationalist would not have killed his own people like that – but apparently he is trying to combine anti-racism and anti-immigration into one ideology, which he identifies, correctly or not, with the Geert Wilders type of what is essentially neo-conservatism. He states in his manifesto that he is prepared for Chinese, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu minorities in Europe to just integrate with Europe, while the Muslims should go – so he is 100% focused on/obsessed with Islam. Anyway, his ideology is not a classical neo-Nazi ideology, whatever the media has to say on this. You could say it was extreme neo-conservatism. I wondered at first if he was a Mossad dupe, attacking the Labour Party for having recognised the state of Palestine…

  2. I have also read parts of the manifesto and like the above post he seems to be in need of solution to what he perceives, rightly or wrongly as the threat to European culture. However I’m a little concerned at some of the ‘instructions’ he lists for survival. Has anyone else spotted this yet, what’s the situation, some advice needed pronto!

  3. You should really make clear where the statement of Sean Gabb ends and the one of Kevin MacDonald beginns.

  4. I suppose I should. On the other hand, it isn’t that hard to guess.

  5. The first three paragraphs are by Sean Gabb – the link to KMcD’s article clarifies all!

  6. I could certainly figure out, where the article starts. But since I haven’t read the article first, I was just reading on and got confused for a moment. I was wondering if a statement like “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 ” is a Libertarian Alliance statement. You might want to make it very clear that it is not. Rumors can spread quickly on the internet, you never know who will read it.

  7. Put the quote in

    tags

  8. Practical ideas on strategy was what worried me when I downloaded the book and realised just what his strategy was. However, the book is all over the net now and, even the beeb has referred to it. So if the law wants to use some silly and vague..having material.. useful.. to . for the commision of blah blah blah….anyone we don’t like, they’ll have to arrest half the western world.
    But perhaps Sean could add that his political strategy had some good practical ideas

  9. blockquote tags that is

  10. Everyone has the book. They can’t stop it now.

  11. I’ll add no such thing. I haven’t read his book. They only comment I am competent to make is that shooting children doesn’t sound a good strategy for winning friends and influencing people.

  12. I downloaded the book, but my ancient computer choked on so huge a document so I only read scraps of it so far. His ideology seems to be standard internet-right-wing. He launches into the Cultural Marxism Hypothesis right of the bat, for instance, which is currently very popular for conservatives, particularly american ones, trying to understand why the 1960s happened.

    Breivik has apparently deliberately dropped everybody to the right of Harriet Harman into the shit. He seems to have knowingly and deliberately done so. He has declared that there is some secret organisation of which he is a part. He has in effect told the authorities to target and clamp down on the Right. It is hard to think of anybody providing a better justification to the authorities for a ruthless assault on right wingers. He does not appear to be a stupid man, so why would he declare the existence of, for instance, a secret brotherhood of “Knights Templar”? The first rule of secret organisations is that you don’t tell people about them.

    He may just be mad, in which case analysis is fruitless. Mad people by definition act irrationally. But I think one possible answer is that he is actively trying to drop everybody in the shit, the idea being to trigger a “tribulation” which will radicalise more right wingers from merely words to taking action. By forcing an extreme reaction from the authorities, who will cause suffering to other right wingers, those right wingers will be driven to action by the persecution they suffer.

    Whatever, the whole game has changed. This man is the fulfillment of warnings by the ruling class- of rightwingextremism- that we used to shrug off as scaremongering. We cannot do that now. We are all now justifiable targets for the authorities. There is, it turns out a Right Wing Conspiracy, a murderous one, after all. The authorities will have carte blanche to round up any and all they so desire to. They will have all the justification they need for wiping off the internet any website they consider a “hate” site. Breivik’s book, replete with incriminatory references to websites and bloggers, is all the evidence they need to demonstrate that freedom of speech kills.

    In proportionate terms, for Norway this massacre is twice as murderous as 9/11. The Americans felt justified in responding to that atrocity with a decade of war against people who had not been directly responsible for it, but were merely part of the same ideology in some way, generally cheered on by many right wingers saying that 9/11 was the consequence of a particular belief system. It will now be impossible to argue for restraint against the ideological Right. Breivik has ensured that. He has proved that the Left were right all along.

  13. Interesting. According to the Beeb, he plans to use his first court appearance today to promote his “right wing” views.

  14. Indeed. And the first time that the 99% of the population who don’t hang around our blogosphere are going to hear about cultural marxism, and all the rest of it, it will be from the mouth of a mass murdering madman.

  15. On first hearing about this dreadful event, I wondered immediately whether it was a “false-flag” operation by the Global Gramscian Fascist left. THE CHARACTER OF BREIVIK (I didn’t mean to capitalise that, but it adds to the effect) for example is so stylised, so “painted in cartoon colours” of what people automatically associate with “the far right”, and the murderous end of that group of leftists in particular, that I felt he had been “constructed” and then let loose. The fact that he neither shot himself nor was shot by the authorities, also aroused suspicion in my mind that he has “things to say” which will chime in with what Ian B said above.

    I think he is a set-up.

    We must remember that the internationalist gramscian fascist left thinks nothing of megadeaths: a hundred or so will not even register on their radar, as part of the (other people’s) price to be paid for ultimate global enslavement of all.

  16. Also, we’ve (that is to say: the world has) _//never heard of the bugger before//_ …. Someone of that degree of forthrightness about such views MUST have been observed somewhere on the internet, if he previously existed. The bastard even knows how to craft smooth internet videos etc. He even uses phrases like “cultural marxism”, which could have been lifted from most classical liberal sites over the last decade. I have not googled him – if he does not show up before last Saturday….then why not…?

  17. Unfortunately, I don’t think so. He’s just the worst possible nutter that we could have spawned from our midst. He’s going to stand there shouting as loudly as he can everything we have been saying for years to deaf ears, and they’re going to give him the platform, and we will be totally discredited.

    I said somewhere or other recently, maybe here, you know how I sit in the corner of any blog who will have me mumbling crazily over my milk stout, anyway, I said that the great advantage they have over us is that all they have to do is wait. If they wait long enough, there will always be a tragedy they can use as a crowbar. They don’t need to “false flag” anything. There will be something. All they had to do was keep saying, “rightwingextremists are dangerous terrorists” and wait for a rightwingextremist terrorist to arrive.

    I don’t think anybody could have imagined that when the event came, it would be as bad as this. But, come it has. I don’t think there’s much use being in denial about what has happened. He’s one of ours.

  18. I disagree with you both. I think we should wait and see what happens next. There is no benefit for anyone in jumping to conclusions. Once the man gets to open his mouth in public at the committal hearing, we shall be in a better position to speak about his motivations, and draw attention to any oddities in the ruling class media reports. Until then, it strikes me as a good idea to denounce the killings, and then to wait and see.

  19. I don’t think so, Ian. Nobody on what the left fascists call “the Conservative right” could possibly be as (a) cruel as that, and (b) as “crafted for the purpose” as that. He’s a weapon of the gramscian left. Does anybody else want to chime in here?

  20. Sean, the reality is that everybody is already deep in teh speculation. We may as well join in. Sunny Hundal over at Liberal Conspiracy is already blaming Melanie Phillips, for instance.

    David, cruelty is not the preserve of one political wing, any more than efficiency is. Most leftists are well meaning but misguided people trying to make the world a better place. There is no Gramscian SMERSH, just a lot of people with similar daft and dangerous ideas.

    He is a man who sees Europe’s doomsday clock poised at one second to midnight, and went over the edge with catastrophic consequences. It’s a terrible thing, but there’s no use denying it.

  21. “He’s just the worst possible nutter that we could have spawned from our midst.”

    No – we didn’t spawn him! He’s nothing to do with the LA.

    But he has had the effect that anyone talking about PC as cultural Marxism will be instantly linked with terrorism.

    Very useful for the authorities.

    Also I saw the Daily Mail talking about his “offensive” comments about Somalis with full Norwegian passports – the media are using this to lurch to the left, and anyone who thinks Somalis are not British or Norwegian or Irish or French or whatever will instantly fall under suspicion.

    What about those who of us who don’t think British passports should be handed out to Somalis, but don’t want to shoot children (of any ethnicity)?

    I am thinking there might be some Mossad connection somewhere.

  22. “No – we didn’t spawn him! He’s nothing to do with the LA.”

    Indeed, by “our” I meant a very general term for people on the right, anti-multiculturalism and other modern leftisms and so on. I just don’t think it’s much use people trying to come up with conspiracy theories about deep cover agents and stuff. He’s a madman inspired by anti-leftist ideas, and we may as well face up to that, in the same way that the Red Brigades were inspired by communism, the IRA by Irish nationalism, and so on and so on.

  23. Since when are libertarians on the right? Libertarians have always denounced the left and right nonsense. Libertarians have always promoted open borders and freedom of religion. Libertarians have always denounced war as mass murder of innocent people. I haven’t read anything from this guy so far that only mildly reminds me of libertarianism. So far it looks like it will be hard to link him to any political movement. Even as a racist is not very good, since he killed white Norwedians. He just seems to be a very confused person. If anything he uses ideology to come up for an excuse to take his power fantasies into action.

  24. True, Nico. But many libertarians associate themselves with conservatism, and the “right”. Sean and David here do, for instance. I’ve said several times I wish they wouldn’t, but it’s quite commonplace sadly.

    Also, he’s banging on about cultural marxism, which is a popular narrative among both american-influenced conservatives and libertarians. It drops us all in the frame.

    Funnily enough, I’ve been meaning to write a big post at Cats about cultural marxism and why we ought to pull back on that narrative in my opinion… and then this fucking disaster happens. Seems kind of redundant now.

  25. I have never heard the expression cultural Marxism. I know that there a libertarians, who like an alliance with conservatives. But even those libertarians normally do not want to shut down the borders completely. I don”t think the media will be successful in linking up conservatives with someone who has murders over 80 unarmed children in a holiday camp.

  26. Really? You’ve not seen libertarians discussing Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, etc? I’m quite surprised at that. It’s a commonplace narrative.

  27. “The Last Ditch” seems to be taking a position with shades of both Ian’s thesis and mine in it.

    http://www.thelastditch.org/lastditch/2011/07/be-afraid.html

    This appalling episode is virtually guaranteed to direct the attentions of the “authorities” onto anyone who does the following, or has ever done, as Lastditch said:-

    “Try the following checklist:

    You do not trust the British state
    You believe that the Labour Party and its fellow-travellers are the greatest enemies of our liberty
    You believe the BBC has a left-liberal bias
    You believe that British academia is dominated – and our education system warped – by the left
    You believe that immigrants have been allowed into Britain faster than they could reasonably be assimilated into our way of life
    You believe that the left-liberal consensus facilitated this deliberately to create client groups for its own electoral advantage
    You are tired of our capital being known as ‘Londonistan’
    You believe that citizens have the right to armed self-defence
    You have called for politicians to be held personally to account (perhaps with a few lurid ‘swinging from lamp-post’ references)”

  28. We already live in a society where a fool can stand up and say “I am a socialist” as if it was something to be proud of. The left have murdered somewhere between 150 and 200 million human beings so far. Those two facts indicate how screwed the world is. This Britvik loon can’t make the cultural climate much worse for freedom than it already is.
    The left and the political scum may rub their hands at the thought of some “crackdown”. However the enemy they can’t beat is economic disaster and that is coming for them. They can’t escape it. When the money runs out and millions are in a bad way if not desperate then we will see what measure of support is enjoyed by which ideas.

  29. For Sean,
    Sean I take back my earlier suggestion that you add something to your introduction to the book. The comment I was referring to..”he has some good strategy” actually belongs to Mr MC Donald and not yourself as I now realise.
    I had only suggested it to distance the comment from -(what we all now know was part of that strategy)- a well thought out plan to commit mass murder
    My apologies

    I have just heard that the committal hearing due to take place this morning is to be closed to public and media, apparently to deny him a platform for his views. And I thought Norway believed in the rule of law,freedom of speech e.t.c.
    I fear some of the comments on the potential fallout from this act–clamping down on so-called right wing extremists–might be in the offing.

  30. There appears to be a lack of understanding of the /point/ of terrorism in the comments here (with the exception of Ian B).

    Has everybody else bought the official line that terrorists are simply unthinking nutters?

    Can I point the more thoughtful of you towards Mike German’s very readable “Thinking Like a Terrorist” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1597970263/).

  31. There is a difference between the crimes that we call “terrorism” and resistance:

    First: The regime opposed must by tyrannical;
    Second: There must be no alternative to violence;
    Third: The violence must be likely to succeed in bringing down an evil regime;
    Fourth: The targets of violence must be obviously guilty of what is objected to

    Since Norway cannot be called a tyranny – not can any other fake democracy of the modern West – he fails on the first. Since there is an alternative to violence in argument, he fails on the second. Since killing children is unlikely to do other than cause a wave of revulsion among the governed, he fails on the third. Since, children are never a legitimate target, he fails on the fourth.

    Assuming he is guilty as charged, the man is a murderer, and the shame is he can’t be strung up at the end of his trial.

    And, if anyone wants an example of justified resistance, I’ll give the killing of Caligula. Here, all the above conditions were met.

  32. First: The regime opposed must by tyrannical;

    Define tyranny. I’m not allowed to smoke down the pub or watch watersports videos. Discuss.

    Second: There must be no alternative to violence;

    Define what counts as a reasonable alternative. Democracy? Consider this society: 10% Jews, 90% Nazis. Or, voicing complaints that will be ignored? Tried campaigning for liberty lately Sean? How’s that going, so far?

    Third: The violence must be likely to succeed in bringing down an evil regime;

    Which is impossible to ascertain until the violence has been tried and either succeeded or failed.

    Fourth: The targets of violence must be obviously guilty of what is objected to

    “Obviously”? By whose measure? Like, a governing party demonstrably introducing particular policies?

    Your list seems rather subjective to me, Sean.

  33. “One of us” does not murder.
    Does not murder children.
    Does not murder anyone.
    Have you ever come close to thinking you might have to shoot someone to death?
    It is an extremely horrifying, nauseating experience that no person can entertain without brutal training unless they have a terrible, evil, infection of their soul.
    This whole sick episode stinks of manipulation.
    It has all been so utterly fulfilling for those who would control, and delegitimise honest thought and exploration.
    It seems there must, at least, have been many blind eyes.

  34. Seán, your points are all valid, apart from the argument that “argument” is an alternative to violence. With controls on the registration of parties, controls on what might be said, and the domination of the media by a left-wing cabal that means argument by those who are against the state simply gets no notice, I don’t really see that argument is a productive alternative at the moment. Or at least it is becoming less and less productive. I didn’t mention the fact you can lose your job and your home for making the wrong arguments. So the alternatives are accepting that what is happening will happen, or doing something more radical. But as, as you say, England is not tyrannical, and radical action is unlikely to topple the state or involve only those clearly deserving of punishment, it seems to me that the main option is, as the authorities have clearly designed it to be, for us just to accept the status quo. Now I am 41 I don’t really harbour serious dreams of changing things any more – if I can carve out a niche for myself I’ll cope somehow. But it is disingenuous to pretend that “argument” is a productive avenue for us. That doesn’t mean that killing our own chldren is in any way an avenue forward either – the concept behind the Norwegian outrages mystifies me, as it so totally has no connection to the man’s claimed concerns. Revolution in some circumstances would be valid – as you said, it would only be a valid strategy where there was a good chance of success, rather than just a likelihood of making things worse – but I do not think those valid circumstances will obtain ever during my lifetime… I’m afraid you can enjoy your blogging, but it is achieving nothing – the real “option” and the only genuine one we have is to accept the status quo. Funny how the EU and everything else tends to force us to reach that conclusion!

  35. DJ- No accent, please!

    DJand Ian B – Tyranny is hard to define exactly, but is easily seen. Norway is not a tyranny. Neither is any other western democracy. The gathering collapse of western liberalism may take us eventually into tyranny, but we are not there yet. Even if dissidents must – in some countries and on some issues – be careful in what they say, opposition in itself is nowhere illegal.

    As for the supposed ineffectiveness of argument, show me one instance of a violent revolution that succeeded and was not preceded by a long course of argument. We are nowhere close to the stage where armed resistance is justified – even a less maniacal kind of violence than Mr Breivik has now confessed to. And, so long as we keep up the flow of argument, we may never reach the point of obvious tyranny.

  36. “Really? You’ve not seen libertarians discussing Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, etc? I’m quite surprised at that. It’s a commonplace narrative.”

    Yes I have heard that. But that is normally where I stop reading. I like the term ruling class and do use it. It makes clear that there are people who profit from the current system and others who don’t. The problem is that some people interpret this as a kind of conspirancy theroy. There is an organised conspirancy against freedom. That is not true. That goes so far that some think we can win by exchanging the ruling class, nonsense. Of course there is a battle of ideas going on. And the system we are in produces certain results automatically. That is why the solution lies outside the system not within. And we must win the battle of ideas.

    And in this case I don’t see that happening that Libertarians will be negatively effected by this terrorist attack. It is too clear that this guy simple was not completly sain and that he simple was by no means a libertarian.

  37. I deplore the massacre – and do not support any form of “radical activity” that includes killing powerless young people. But I think the press is having a field day with this anyway – we should be alert to Establishment attempts to use this issue.

    For a start, where are the names and ages and ethnicities and photos of the killed? Normally the papers would be full of this. I don’t think killing any powerless people of any age or ethnicity is acceptable, but it is clear that the media are spinning this like billy-o.

    We are told – the dead were 14 years old. Really? How many 14 year olds go to political camps? Somewhere else I read this camp was for 15-25 years olds. I don’t approve of the killing of 25 year old young people for no reason, but I suspect there are few 14 year olds among the dead. There might have been some. The average age of the camp participants was put at 19 on one site – young people, but mainly not children. I am not arguing killing 19 year olds is fine – but I am arguing the authorities are stressing the 14 year old aspect in a way that suggests they are trying to use this massacre for their own purposes. Were there are any 14 year olds among the dead? We don’t yet know.

    They are also stressing that he killed blondhaired blue-eyed people. But where is the list? I am sure that blond-haired people were among the dead, but a Labour Party youth camp must have had wholly disproportionate ethnic attendance. The Guardian explains how an Afghan asylum seeker survived the massacre – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/25/norway-utoya-asylum-seeker , where it is explained how “the shooting began soon after he finished playing in a football tournament in which party activists from all over the world took part. Afghanistan, Georgia, the Kurdish regions of Turkey and Iraq, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Lebanon were among the nations represented.”

    Hang on! What Afghans! What Georgians! What Kurds! What Turks! What Iraqs! What Sri Lankans! What Somalis! What Lebanese! We have only been told about blond-haired blue-eyed people attending a camp. I am not arguing that killing people of any of these ethnicities would be fine – it would not – but I am arguing that the media are laying a stress on a certain image of the type of people slaughtered – 14 year old blond haired blue eyed children – that is probably a significant distortion.

    The Utoya killings we terrible outrage, but we have to be aware when the media are putting an additional gloss on the facts. The facts are already bad enough – but I would like the details out in the open about the ages and ethnicities of those killed. I was a Communist in my 20s – and I attended week long conferences and workshops – I could have been killed by a Britvic style killer – so I am not at all in favour of this – but bear in mind that sections of the government and media are cock-a-hoop over the killings.

  38. A final point. This case is important for any change it brings in its wake in how we are governed. What concerns us is what impact on discussion in England it will have.

    The Daily Mail said (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017962/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Right-wing-extremist-hated-immigrants-multi-culturalism.html): “His internet postings betray a hatred of multi-culturalism and include offensive references to ‘Somali immigrants with full Norwegian passports’ living off state benefits and sending money home to their Muslim relatives.”

    Apparently, the Mail, while claiming to be a conservative newspaper, and indeed itself carrying many articles on Somalis with British passports living off state benefits–if that is offensive, then the Daily Mail is offensive–now claims to oppose such statements.

    Such statements are made much more widely than by terrorists. This is one of only a handful of rightwing bombings in Europe–and yet given the many tens of millions of people in Europe who agree with the “offensive comments”, it is by no means clear that opposing immigration=terrorism. We must not allow such a spurious link to be forged.

    Let me state for the record: I do not believe that people of non-European origin should be given British passports. I wrote a long time ago in the Salisbury Review on this subject. The reason is that “nationality” is a vertical connection to the state bureaucracy, but real nationhood is a horizontal connection between people. To hand out passports to people who do not share our language, culture, religion, history, ancestry or identity is to create a whole class of people whose connection to Britain is purely vertical – the state wants them here, but they have nothing in common with the British nation. This is designed to turn us from a people into a mere population, an increasingly individuated ragbag of people with no ties to each other. For this reason, Somalis are not British, even if they have British passports – and I do deplore giving them our benefits. The Mail, while whipping up rage on this subject, now claims it is offensive for people to even talk about it.

    The most important thing is that we retain space to discuss the debauching of our citizenship rolls, and do not allow the media to ban all such comment under the general heading of “something that Breivik would have said”. Not everything Breivik said is wrong – he quoted Melanie Phillips and plenty of others in his book – and so mainstream journalists can share many of his views, without going to the extremes he did. We must carry on explaining that Somalis, Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians and all the rest – are not British, Norwegian, Finnish, Irish, or whatever. A state that prevents such discussion is inviting radicalism–I don’t support lone wolf tactics (mass insurrection I would support in the right circumstances), but it is idle to pretend that lone wolf extremists are working off the back of government behaviour that is deeply prejudical to the interests of the peoples of their countries.

  39. I meant to say: “it is idle to pretend that lone wolf extremists are NOT working off the back of government behaviour that is deeply prejudicial to the interests of the peoples of their countries”.

  40. I see the Telegraph lists 14 victims today – and one was 14 years old, and another missing presumed dead was 15. I would like to see the full list.

    I feel that normally in such tragedies the police try to get the names of the victims out in public as soon as the families are notified. This time, the police in Norway didn’t seemed bothered about collating a list properly – how coud they say 86 then 68? I would have thought identifiying the dead, notifying the families and publishing their names would be first priority – but as it is the police don’t seem to know themselves who they were yet.

  41. If there is a “Quisling Right”, the Daily Mail typifies it. It is not a conservative paper. Needless to say, it is certainly not a libertarian paper. Its pure interest is the stirring of panic, and it will latch onto any cause, however “left wing” it may be, if it engenders greater panic in its readership. That is the only criterion.

    It is also of course intensely hypocritical, happy on the one hand to complain of “sexualisation” while simultaneously running endless articles about minor celebrities in bikinis. Perhaps the most famous example was back in 2001, when they ran an article denouncing the Brass Eye paedophilia spoof, right next to a picture of 15 year old Charlotte Church, with a caption entirely about the size of her breasts.

    Ghastly rag.

  42. Ian has at last crystallised for me the inchoate thoughts I have been having about the “Daily Mail”. I could not put my finger on its strategic objective, not being a disorderly sort of old fella, but “creating mass panics” says it all.

    The phrases are even stock: “XXXXXXX “shows off her bikini body” comes to mind, regarding all those artlessly posed but officially incidental telephoto shots, so well focussed and so sharp always, of the subject apparently unconscious of the papparazzo not 50 yards away.

    I read it to keep retuning my finger on the pulse of what the EnemyClass is planning for us masses next – the uncurious ones that is.

  43. @dj
    “A real nationalist would not have killed his own people like that ”
    Unless he regarded those he killed as ‘traitors’, which Breivik obviously did. Sort of rains on that wee parade. No?

  44. Recent events in Norway violated the most basic principles of libertarians, starting with the non-aggression principle and continuing with attacks on the most basic rights of people to life, liberty and justly acquired property. The man is clearly a reactionary nationalist and a statist racist. Nothing could be further from libertarianism.

    Tony

  45. Funny, Anonymous, that you decided to label the victims of Utoya “traitors” while hiding behind anonymity – and yet teenagers are not traitors in any country. They are not old enough, and certainly not influential enough, to be behind any government policies, and at that age it is almost a certainty that nearly all people of that age will spout whatever line they were pumped full of at school. So did I!

    Re: tony Hollick – libertarianism has no “non-aggression” principle – see the US Revolution in 1776 and the war of independence – that was on libertarian lines, but they had to fight for their fights. The problem with Breivik was his totally unacceptable choice of target – I don’t think assassination of powerful government leaders achieves anything – they can be replaced by identikit people – but in the case of a leader with real power and influence, i would not shed tears over them – but powerless children/young people is something else entirely. I don’t recommend assassination either, as it discredits the right and achieves nothing, or if it achieves anything, leads to a clampdown on the right… but I am drawing a distinction between killing the PM and killing a teenager.

  46. Dj, libertarians generally do cleave to the non-aggression principle. However it is important to remember that this is a principle that one will not initiate aggression, not a requirement for passivity.

  47. For me, Ian B, non-aggression is not an absolute – all it means is that once a libertarian society is achieved, aggression is not required – it doesn’t mean that there are never any imaginable circumstances when someone might use force to gain his rights. There would be no democracy or anything if the population had been non-aggressive since time immemmorial. Only fear of revolution achieved political change in the 19th century.

  48. That is why the non-aggression principle only applies to initiation of aggression. If somebody is aggressing against you, be it a government or an individual, you have the right to retaliate. As I said, it is not a requirement to be passive and accept the aggression of others.

    For “aggression” read “the intitiation of force”. It is just a general libertarian principle; you are not within your rights to attack somebody else, but if they attack you, you of course respond appropriately. If your rights are violated, then you are being aggressed against, and and the principle does not restrain you.

    Because the word “aggression” is too easy to interpret only as physical assault, I prefer to say that a libertarian society is one in which a “principle of consent” applies; that is, you may only interact with others in consensual ways, such as by trade, and not by non-consensual means, such as theft.

  49. Well for me, personal taxation is non-consensual, and so therefore a form of aggression against me.

  50. Indeed. Taxation was what triggered the US war of independence, after all… :)

  51. Actually, the fact that the House of Lords had just ruled that slavery was unlawful may have had something to do with it. Agriculture in the Colonies was critically dependent on slavery.

    Tony

  52. I feel I ought to clarify, having raised the question of the ages and the ethnicities, that there were 2 14-year-olds and 7 15-year-olds among the 77 dead. And 12 ethnic-minority people. All the killings were unjustified, but I think it was worth questioning whether the media were trying to put an emphasis on the figures – as I pointed out, most of the dead were young adults, not children. The ethnic-minority figures were on the low side, at least compared to what you might expect from a similar gathering in London, but this may reflect the incipient nature of multiculturalism in Norway. The Norway police displayed a cavalier disregard for the victims – even issuing wrong figures – and the victims are something of an afterthought for the Norwegian authorities. The victims were:

    1. Torjus Jakobsen Blattmann, 17 from Kristiansand
    2. Anne Lise Holter, 51, from Vaaler
    3. Aleksander Aas Eriksen, 16, from Meraaker
    4. Aasta Sofie Helland Dahl, 16, from Sortland
    5. Anders Kristiansen, 18, from Bardu
    6. Karin Elena Holst, 15, from Mo i Rana
    7. Hanne Ekroll Loevile, 30, from Oslo
    8. Fredrik Lund Schjetne, 18, from Eldsvoll
    9. Tina Iversen Sukuvara, 18, from Vadsoe
    10. Carina Borgund, 18, from Oslo
    11. Elisabeth Tronnes Lie, 16, from Halden
    12. Mona Abdinur, 18, from Oslo
    13. Tarald Kuven Mjelde, 18, from Osteroey
    14. Isabel Victoria Green Sogn, 17, from Oslo
    15. Andreas Edvardsen, 19, from Sarpsborg
    16. Ronja Soettar Johansen, 17, from Vefsn
    17. Gizem Dogan, 17, from Trondheim
    18. Synne Roeyneland, 18, from Oslo
    19. Tove Aashill Knutsen, 56, from Oslo
    20. Silje Stamneshagen, 18, from Askoey
    21. Rolf Christopher Johansen Perreau, 25, from Trondheim
    22. Dupe Ellen Awoyemi, 15, from Drammen
    23. Margrethe Boeyum Kloeven, 16, from Baerum
    24. Bano Abobakar Rashid, 18, from Nesodden
    25. Diderik Aamodt Olsen, 19, from Nesodden
    26. Birgitte Smetbak, 15, from Notteroy
    27. Simon Saebo, 18, from Salangen
    28. Silje Merete Fjellbu, 17, from Tinn
    29. Haakon Odegaard, 17, from Trondheim
    30. Guro Vartdal Havoll, 18, from Oersta
    31. Kjersti Berg Sand, 26, from Nord-Oda
    32. Hanne A Balch Fjalestad, 43, from Lunner, and originally from the Danish city of Herning
    33. Sharidyn Meegan Ngahiwi Svebakk-Boehn, 14, from Palmerston North, New Zealand
    34. Trond Berntsen, 51
    35. Tore Eikeland, 21
    36. Hanne Kristine Fridtun, 20
    37. Johannes Buoe, 14, from Mandal
    38. Monica Bosei, 45 Head of the Norway Maritime Museum
    39. Gunnar Linaker, 23
    40. Snore Haller, 30
    41. Ismail Haji Ahmed, 20
    42. Jamil Rafal Yasin, 20
    43. Tarald Mjelde, 18
    44. Syvert Knudsen, 17
    45. Emil Okkenhaug, 15
    46. Sondre Furseth Dale, 17, from Haugesund
    47. Sverre Flate Bjorkavaag, 28, from Sula
    48. Eivind Hovden, 15, from Tokke
    49. Ida Marie Hill (34) from Oslo
    50. Hanna Orvik Endresen, 61
    51. Kai Hauge, 32
    52. Jon Vegard Lervaag (32) from Oslo
    53. Steinar Jessen, 16, from Alta
    54. Ingrid Berg Heggelund, 18, from Aas
    55. Thomas Margido Antonsen (16) from Oslo
    56. Victoria Stenberg, 17
    57. Bendik Ellingsen, 18
    58. Eva Kathinka Lutken, 17
    59. Lene Maria Bergum, 19
    60. Andreas Dalby, 17
    61. Marianne Sandvik, 16
    62. Tamta Liparteliani, 23
    63. Even Malmedal, 18
    64. Pamela Ardam, 21
    65. Ruth Benedichte Vatndal Nilsen, 15
    66. Espen Jurgensen, 17
    67. Karar Mustafa Qasim, 19
    68. Maria Maagero Johannesen, 17
    69. Kevin Daae Berland, 15
    70. Ida Beathe Rogne, 17
    71. Monica Iselin Didriksen, 18
    72. Havard Vederhus, 21
    73. Lejla Selaci, 17 [Albanian]
    74. Andrine Bakkene Espeland, 17
    75. Rune Havdal, 43, from Oevre Eiker
    76. Henrik Andre Pedersen, 27
    77. Sondre Kjoren, 17

    Under 16: #6, #22, #26, #33, #37, #45, #48, #65, #69
    Ethnic: #12, #17, #22, #24, maybe #33, #41, #42, #51, #62, #64, #67, #73

    There are a number of important ramifications from the massacre. First, the Norwegian PM has explicitly stated that comment, even negative comment, on immigration is acceptable, as long as it is not accompanied by violence. Of course, most countries in Europe have been leaning towards criminalising even peaceful comments against immigration – and so the fact that they feel they have to say that people can speak out on the issue is important. But all the more reason this massacre is falling off the newsstands – they don’t want to constantly reiterate that free comment on immigration and race is acceptable, because they don’t really think it should be. Second, the massacre is being boxed off as the work of a madman or as the product of evil. Breivik was not mad – what is chilling is the intelligence shown in his manifesto – this was the work of a lucid and sane person. As for evil, well, that ignores the political aspect, that he did what he did as what he saw as the only way a lone individual could make an impact on the issue – the act reeked of moral turpitude, but to describe it as evil seems to depoliticise it. It was a political act.

    We should bear in mind that the Norwegian PM and others don’t give a stuff about “evil” when it comes to ethnic crime – the fact that every single rape in Oslo over the last 5 years was stated by the Norwegian police to have been by members of the ethnic minorities – well, where were the Labour Party politicians then? And after the July 7th bombings in London, weren’t the British government more concerned about preventing any fallout against Islam than with the dead? The dead were just collateral damage in their strategy of demographic change. Basically, 77 dead young people are nothing to the British government – and nothing to the Norwegian government either – if anything the Norwegian government is probably mainly relieved no senior politicians were killed.

    From our point of view, while condemning the senseless killings, we must retain space to condemn multiculturalism and the politicians conspiring to demographically reconfigure their countries too.

    Another interesting point is the attractiveness of Scandinavians – this tragedy strikes home because most of the victims were very very good-looking Scandinavians. If Breivik had killed 77 Pakistanis or 77 Somalis – I don’t think the killings would have had the same impact at all.

  53. I think it does credit to your intellectual honesty that, having raised the possibility that the authorities were covering up how non-white the victims were, you have given the full names and probable races of the victims and retracted your earlier suspicion.

    Otherwise, it does show great moral turpitude. I mentioned the assassination of Caligula as an example of legitimate violence. The killing of his wife and children does, however, bring discredit on the plotters, as they were too young or too remote from power to be seen as legitimate targets. I’d also mention Beria’s killing of Stalin, which prevented another purge, and brought a new group of cautious authoritarians to power. Then there were the Hitler Bomb Plot and the failed shooting of Lenin as other examples of legitimate violence. In both cases, success would have made things better. But just spraying bullets at young people is wrong.

    As an aside, I wonder how the assassination of Marat contributed to ending the Terror. He had it coming, and I only regret he didn’t suffer more than he did. But killing him didn’t end the Terror, as there were too many other projectors. On the other hand, I wonder if it had some long term effect on the Revolutionaries?

  54. Oh, the above comment is mine!

  55. By the way, the Westminster police seem to be asking people to inform if they think a neighbor or an acquaintance is “an anarchist.”

    Me, I’m a sort of democratic liberal.

    Tony