« Home | Still running on fumes. » | Anders Breivik and "cultural Marxism". » | Rolling with the punches. » | Lucian Freud, 1922 - 2011. » | Undeveloped vetting. » | Can't we talk about something else? Oh. » | Little contrition and no real taking of responsibi... » | The best laid plans... » | Pan. » | The cancer remains. » 

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 

Anders Breivik: a fascist?

(This is the reply I've posted to Unity's excellent Breivik and fascism - a lesson from George Orwell. As it's long enough and I'm feeling slightly lazy I'm reposting it here, with a few slight additions and tweaks, as well as links and citations.)

Much as I agree with the vast majority of this, I think the main problem with accurately labelling Breivik is that as yet we haven't come up with a convincing catch-all term for the new far right which on the surface eschews racism but which underneath is just as virulent in its hatred of those with brown skin as the fascists and neo-Nazis we're all familiar with. Scratch beneath Breivik's anti-racist fa├žade and you find the same old tropes, i.e. as in the way he exclusively blames "Muslims" for the crime in Oslo (page 1392 of his "manifesto"), just as the EDL and those associated with it have banged on about "Muslims" being in control of the drug trade in various cities, as if religion has anything whatsoever to do with it.

This is why I think he personally has more in common with Tim McVeigh than any previous European terror group or individual. McVeigh was a fan of the Turner Diaries and a known racist, but he was further radicalised by the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges. Coupled with the then highly en vogue "new world order" conspiracy theories, he decided to strike back against the US federal government.

Breivik instead found his inspiration mainly from the hysterical far-right, convinced that pure Muslim demographics mean that Europe is doomed. He combined this with the utterly bizarre conspiracy theory that the Frankfurt school of Marxist social theorists have somehow managed to influence politicians of both mainstream right and left into imposing state multiculturalism and political correctness onto their people without their consent. Into the mix also came the "anti-jihadist" bloggers and other assorted right-wing figures, both American and European, Pam Geller and Geert Wilders (page 1407) to name but two, all of whom he came to believe were simply not going to achieve anything through democratic politics, so convinced of the control the "cultural Marxists" have over everything. Only he, or rather his almost certainly imaginary group, can start off the war by killing not Muslims, although he includes them in his list of "prioritised targets" (page 921), but instead hitting the multiculturalists themselves. In this he shares the "awakening" belief of many other terrorists before him, that through one spectacular act he can both raise awareness among those of like minds that they can personally do something, and also hopefully provoke the authorities into so overreacting that they make things worse, the same trap the West walked into after 9/11.

While I won't demure from the fact that his dream Europe would be a very old-fashioned totalitarian place, with the media controlled and patriarchy mandated (heh), he also proposes the on the surface completely incongruous idea of "liberal zones" (page 1168), where those who wish to live "Sex and the City" lifestyles can do so, as long as they are cut off "ideologically" from the rest of society to avoid "cultural contamination". Not many fascists would be willing to offer an apparent safe haven from their policies, especially when so many would obviously consider things to be far more pleasant there.

Apart from being a mess of contradictions then, he's a fascist of the very latest school, albeit one who unlike the EDL has fully pseudo-intellectualised his actions and gone from viewing all Muslims as being bent on world domination, even if indirectly, to killing those he believes are enabling them. The wags over at Blood and Treasure suggested, with tongue firmly in cheek, that he could be viewed as the military wing of Melanie Phillips. In my view, he's best compartmentalised as a 21st century European white nationalist, who while others talked decided to act, by murdering the "friends" of his enemies. And with that, we perhaps ought to stop considering the ravings of a lone lunatic, however much insight he might give into current far-right thinking.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Share |

"..The failure of his fantasy league, the "Knights Templar", to gain traction in reality led to seemingly-plastic-in-appearance norweigan going a bit batshit and choosing his hero roleplaying over reality.

.. [terrorism] is the resultant implosion of those with no control of the state to counterweight the control the state exerts over them. Anders was clearly a rightist once, towards his end he was allied to no political ideals save for the power fantasy in his own mind, and therefore, believed himself the most disenfranchised of them all."

- My comment at alt-right

As someone who once read your blog and is now part of the "hysterical" new right, I'm pretty unimpressed by this shabby piece.. ABB repeatedly expressed sentiments in favour of collaborating withjihadist terrorist groups to kill white europeans, and in his own writings declare his ambition to be a "hero of europe." Also your knowledge of ABB is pretty piss poor, he was a cultural conservative, very much rooted in the egalitarian ideal that all muslims needed was a healthy dose of christian influence and they would be OK - He was, infact, the opposite of the common sense, all-races-are-different thinking of White Nationalism 2.0.

Also annoying is your dismissal of the new right as abunch of fascists and neo-nazis; this is such a ludricrous accusation it could only come from a left wing blogger like yourself. It's so staggering in its lack of humility that it demonstrates you've failed to listen to what any of the new right actually has to say; I very much doubt extended discussion about the nature of the state, nihilism, free markets, fiat currency, etc etc is a big indicator of being deranged batshit goosesteppers.

Not to mention overlooking the actual truth of his observations:

"Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background." - Fjordman.


Lazy article, lazy thinking, lazy accusations, lazy assumptions about the world. Clearly, you haven't developed intellectually at all, stuck in the same old rut of calling anyone who observes the reality of ethnicity, crime, and the dwindling of the white european demographic a "neo-nazi." Consider me disgusting and disappointed that in the years since I stopped reading, you haven't challenged your own preconceptions a jot.


Actually, it's fairly clear your knowledge of ABB is pretty piss poor as well: he wanted the deportation of all Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity, not just a "healthy dose of Christian influence" as you put it. They would also be completely barred from speaking any language other than the one of their nationality, even in their homes, not allowed to have more than two children, and stopped from even corresponding with their relatives abroad. Cultural conservatism that isn't; it's assimilate entirely or get out.

As for the rest, well, let's just say that I would rather stick with my lazy thinking and stay in my intellectual rut than become convinced of the belief that European life as we've known it is about to come to an end. If though you want to be associated with the likes of the new right and their virulent hatred of all Muslims based on a fantasy world where they're about to dominate us, that's up to you.

Yes, exactly - He believed in cultural assimilation rather than racial categorisation. How very race nationalist of him. Again, lazy thinking.

The irony is, the real fantasy world is one in which the west can intake large numbers of people who are by definition hostile to western values indefinitely. As for virulent hatred, I'll hate who I damn well please, especially if they say they want to kill me: 40% of 16-24 yr old British Muslims say they want shari'a law.

Again, Oops!

Septicisle: Intellectual lightweight?

I don't especially want to get into this, as you're more than welcome to continue with your irrationality, but let's just have a look at Breivik's idol Fjordman and who you also quote from's view of "racial determinism":

"I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don't think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, it needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial."

"The idea that every white person who desires self-determination and self-preservation is a racist, xenophobic neo-Nazi is nonsense and should be flatly rejected. The vast majority of racist violence in Western nations is that of non-whites attacking whites. It's not about white supremacy, it's about equality. Whites are currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their own countries and heritage. If we assert our right to do so we are thus fighting for equality, not supremacy."

He's a white nationalist. Breivik was a white nationalist. He also murdered children in the aim of starting a war against every European government, all of which are apparently controlled by cultural Marxists. If you want to make common cause with such people, that's up to you. I'd rather be intellectually lightweight than intellectually bankrupt.

Given that both you and Unity have incredibly flawed and skewed views of nationalism that's bye the bye, anyone who supports individual property rights is a "white" nationalist. White is merely the preference, nationalism is the just the idea that people acting in self determination can be unified by common non-ideological traits.

I didn't intend to reply to your comment initially but unfortunately your reply contains such ridiculous fallacies it would be a disservice to your readers not to highlight them. Whether or not I "choose" to make common cause is really no choice at all. If Fjordman and Breivik are correct, which they are, that truth is not a matter of choice; if I care about preserving the rights of individuals to determine how they live their lives, which I do, that also is not a matter of choice. What you are basically doing is trying to equate a belief in the rights of peoples to self determination in their homelands - In this case, white europeans - With the desire to go and shoot up a youth camp, which is about as crazy as Breivik was. Using your logic, if the 9/11 bombers were muslim, and the local guy who runs the halal place is also a muslim, then the local guy who runs the halal place is making common cause with the 9/11 bombers.

You didn't actually reply to my arguments in either previous comments, that Breivik was no longer of the right and instead off into the realm of fairies and knights, but instead went off onto an islamic apologist tangent. Then you point out that Fjordman recognises the reality of racial differences - Not exactly relevant to my statement that muslims want Shari'a and hatred of these totalitarians is justified by this. You're out of your depth, Septic, and your comments show it.

Ps, thanks for quoting Fjordman, I guess a few of the brighter readers here will pick up on it and start their journey towards the more rational wing of the political spectrum.

If you want to keep digging yourself deeper into a hole, then please carry on. It's very entertaining. I'm not equating white nationalism in the virulent form Fjordman promotes with what Breivik did, as you know full well - what I am saying though is if political Islam leads to or enables al-Qaida, then the delusional brand of new right politics, with its strains of vicious "anti-jihadist" sentiment and conspiratorial thinking that the entirety of European politicians are committing collective suicide can also, and has, directly contributed to the massacre in Norway. I'm not alone in saying this: Norwegian conservative Bjorn Staerk has written two pieces arguing in exactly the same way.

As for Breivik being away with the fairies in a fantasy world, how accurate that is we'll almost certainly never know. His Knights Templar nonsense could just as much be an attempt at romanticising his actions as it him losing touch with reality. What is clear from his statement to the police is he still believes that what he did was necessary. It had a political aim and he still has political ideals, regardless of whether he's three sheets to the wind.

And really, if the best evidence you can come up with for Muslims in general being ready to kill you/overrun Europe is that 40% of 16-24 year-olds in this country would like Sharia law, not even a majority of a minority, when we don't know why they would like Sharia law, as I've discussed over here, then your reasoning for your political switch is even more pitiful and lacking than it first appeared. I'm sure the tiny number of people reading my intellectually lightweight witterings can decide as to who here is the one plunging ever deeper.

Will follow the links. Also, I didn't say they were ready to overrun Europe, that's your own projections about the right talking.

Post a Comment


  • This is septicisle


    blogspot stats

     Subscribe in a reader


Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates