Andres Behring Breivik, from Politicons.net.
The photo above was published, unconfirmed, on the conservative blog Politicons.net. The blogger claims it’s a photo of the 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who has been arrested in conjunction with both the huge terrorist bombing in downtown Oslo and the massacre at the Labor Party’s nearby youth camp.
The Norwegian press has categorized him as a right-wing extremist and a self-claimed Freemason, which was enough to start the tinfoil hat parade of people posting online that he’s a mind-controlled slave to the Illuminati. Wikipedia linked to a page of Breivik’s comments on the website Document.no, which is described as an anti-Muslim website (though as far as I can tell, it seems more like a garden-variety Norwegian conservative site).
That website’s publisher put a link to Breivik’s comments on its front page, with a notice that it was doing so because of attention aimed at Breivik. Strangely, several of Breivik’s comments seem to focus on his wanting to take over a leadership role at the site, but I read this as self-aggrandizing behavior on Breivik’s part, not necessarily culpability on the part of the site.
Though the comments were made in Norwegian — and Document.no is a Norwegian site — it’s easy enough to generate a spotty Google Translate version that, despite the linguistic and contextual problems inherent to auto-translations, proves deeply disturbing the more you read of it.
Incidentally, as I write this, no indication of a conspiracy or wide-ranging plot has appeared, that I can find, either in the Norwegian or English-language press. He appears to have acted alone.
A story in Norwegian referenced Breivk’s claimed Facebook page, and noted that it had reportedly been deleted several times (I’m not clear on whether it was for objectionable content). The Politicons blog links to what claims to be his Twitter account, where there’s only one Tweet…but it’s creepy as hell:
It’s a quote from John Stuart Mill. Though Mill is an important figure in “liberal political philosophy,” it should be noted that this is actually a different use of the term “liberal” than is meant when it’s used today in the United States. That “liberal” tag is sometimes used by those that I see as economically right-wing to claim that they are “original liberals” or subscribe to “classical liberalism.” Ultra-Conservative wonks love to pull that liberal tag out to confuse issues about who’s the liberal, and to avoid calling themselves conservative. Though he was, for the times, socially liberal, advocating free speech and personal liberty, it’s John Stuart Mill’s dreams of personal liberty based on free-market economics that so influence the right today. Never mind that Mill once wrote, “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
But Breivik was not afraid to call himself conservative, and does so (choosing the label “cultural conservative”) on Document.no. In short, Breivik appears to be, as the New York Times reported and the Norwegian press has categorized him, a right-wing extremist. From his comments on Document.no, he is anti-Muslim and anti-multicultural, also strongly anti-Marxist and anti-Nazi. His writings speak repeatedly of “the European struggle” against “Islamic immigration.” Though he appears to be a fan of Norwegian anti-Nazi Resistance fighter Max Manus, his language on Document.no is disturbingly reminiscent both of the ’30s National Socialists (and their affiliated groups in other countries, particularly England) and of the vaguer, more coded anti-immigrant messages from today’s right-wing groups in the U.S., particularly California (long the heartland of neo-Nazi and White Nationalist groups). “The European Struggle” sounds like it could be the title of a Nazi propaganda film.
The truly disturbing thing is that I can already hear in my head the apologist sentiments from people in the U.S. who might be unfamiliar with Nazi, white nationalist and other crypto-extremist ideology that tries to sound reasonable. Conservatives, pro-Americans, self-appointed Libertarians and tell-it-like-it-is types often interpret comments like Breivik’s as being reasonable…a sort of “common sense” response to the riddle of global terrorism. That is…when they don’t come from a guy who just killed dozens of his own countrypeople.
In fact, Breivik’s comments, at least insofar as I (inexpertly) interpret the Norwegian, are a mix of conservative political ideology and heavily-coded allusions to race war, in language that seems transparent to any student of German, South African, or Russian history. These codes are mixed in with explicitly anti-Islamist statements that could easily have been among the “more reasonable” comments left on virtually any Fox News or CNN story about Islamic terrorism…and that’s the weird part. Breivik is clearly a racist, pinko-hating nut who gets hives when children sing Kumbaya, but I don’t see any premonitions of violence, at least not directly. I just see the same stuff that often comes from some of the more educated Americans who have a bone to pick with multiculturalism and what they’ve decided is “Marxism” — and do so with single-minded fanaticism, while still sounding like some of the more reasonable people posting on the net. His comments include the opinion that Marxism is a hate-based ideology like Islamism and Naziism, but that all hate-based ideologies that lead to slaughter should be considered the same. He seems, despite his prejudiced statements, to claim be anti-hate…and anti-slaughter.
I don’t know if, in that context, it would be more or less disturbing if the people Breivik slaughtered hadn’t been mostly blonde, blue-eyed Norwegians like himself. Breivik’s objection appears to have been to the whole direction he believed European society was headed — toward multiculturalism. To counteract that, he set off bombs in Oslo and murdered, en masse, young people.
His perceived campaign seems to have been against the “multiculturalist” elements — that is, the Norwegian political left — but it’s as hard to reconcile Breivik’s claimed politics with his actions as it is Timothy McVeigh’s. It’s hard to see anything but utter madness in his behavior. Even the term “mental illness” becomes insufficient to describe the kinds of maladies of the soul that drive someone to behave like this. It’s tempting to try to view Breivik’s right-wing politics as the source of his behavior. But it’s far more likely that, for Breivik alone, they were a symptom of extreme disturbance, not a cause of his rampage.
And maybe that’s the way it usually is. Clearly terrorist violence from any quarter defies reason on some level. That’s the very thing that makes the dream logic of slaughter both fascinating and unendingly torturous to consider. But if anybody ever needs reminding that race-based hatred and militancy lead to indiscriminate violence, I hope they’ll remember the case of Breivik’s anti-multicultural race war…against Norwegians.
Here are a few of his creepier comments, translation jerryrigged and semi-paraphrased from Google Translate and my own interpretation:
Japan and South Korea are clear examples of countries that consistently and very directly dismissed multiculturalism. They were steadfast in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s and this continues to this day…The UN has for years been trying to push [Japan and South Korea] to receive hundreds of thousands of refugees…Multiculturalists will be very embarrassed if you mention Japan and South Korea as these nations proves quite obvious that mass immigration is only a result of specific Marxist doctrines, and is very rarely allowed. Japan / South Korea has a border and border guards. If one lacks the visa one is denied passage…(Europe had this scheme prior 1950-1960). The interesting question is, why aren’t the Japanese and South Koreans demonized as the Nazis and fascists? We know the answer…
…
The problem is that it often does not help that 80% of Muslims are “moderates”, ie they ignore the Quran. “It takes very few people to overthrow a plane.” …What percentage is the Taliban of Pakistan’s population? 1%, 3%, 5%? And how much chaos is there today? In every society where Islam exists there will be a certain percentage of the Muslims who actually follow the traditional interpretations of the Koran…And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called “moderate Muslims”…There are moderate Nazis, too, that will not support fumigation of Jews. But they’re still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?
Unfortunately, Marxists have already infiltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work as professors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differently. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies. Not all Muslims, Nazis and Marxists are conservative, most are moderate. But does it matter? A moderate Nazi might, after having experienced fraud, choose to be conservative. A moderate Muslim can, after being refused to enter a club, be conservative, etc…It is obvious that the moderate supporters of hate-ideologies, at a later date may choose conservatism.
Islam (ism) has historically led to 300 million deaths
Communism has historically led to 100 million deaths
Nazism has historically led to 6-20 million deaths
ALL hate ideologies should be treated equally….
According to two studies 13% of young British Muslims between 15 and 25 support Al Qaeda’s ideology. The UK is representative for Norway, so I would guess that at least 15-20% of Norwegian Muslims support murder of gays. There is certainly no fewer that supports the killing of gays than to support Al Qaeda.
…
Although the majority of humanists but also many liberals are anti-nationalists, and is therefore by definition cultural Marxists. Promote either multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) or monoculture (nationalist), there is nothing in between, even though most do not dare to admit this yet. Well, there’s the multi-culture without Islam is a middle ground…The old definitions often do not apply anymore. Eg. the British Tories who actually still dare to call themselves conservatives support cultural Marxism / multiculturalism and should be renamed. One cannot support cultural Marxism/ multiculturalism and simultaneously call themselves conservative…The majority on the right side has unfortunately not yet found out that one must defeat multiculturalism in order to defeat the Islamization as many still see themselves as multiculturalists…
…Sometime in the future, most will have to flag the point of view, you will have to make a choice: nationalism or internationalism.
[Link.]
There’s a lot more — about 16,000 words of it. More to come, I’m sure.
“His comments include the opinion that Marxism is a hate-based ideology ”
I had lived 15 years in a country run by Marxists, was forced to learn Marxism, saw the state and practically all the society organized according to Marxism, so I can tell you:
the statement above is not an opinion, but a fact.
What is a “fact” is that a guy who murders 80+ people randomly in cold blood does not have an opinion I’ll put too much weight in about what is and is not a “hate-based ideology.”
Seriously? That entire article, this entire tragedy, and that’s ALL you had to comment on?
@sthemy
So what “hate ideology” does Marxism preach?
@123
Marxism preaches hate of having passion for ones own culture , race and nation. Marxism seeks to destroy this until the populous is so diluted that it is malleable and primed for manipulation. Read Karl Marx for education on the subject.
@Angus, I really hate it when people leaving comments say crap like “Read Karl Marx for education on the subject.” This is simultaneously ignorant and elitist. It assumes that someone who is asking this question has not red Karl Marx, and that someone who has read Karl Marx would, by necessity, have come to the same conclusion as you.
Having read Karl Marx, I am NOT a big fan of him, and far less a fan of the regimes that dotted the 20th century that trace their lineage to Marxism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). How could anybody have a damned thing positive to say about Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? Yet Breivik, I assert, is placing Hitler in that context in order to downplay the number of deaths caused by Naziism and overstate the number of deaths caused by Islam, Stalinism, Maoism. This is a classic neo-Nazi talking point.
Furthermore, Breivik’s assignation of the Marxist label to “humanists” is utterly ludicrous. Trying to paint Marxism as a hate ideology because it is globalist and anti-National is utterly ignorant and offensive. Especially in the context of a commentary on a story about AN ANTI-MARXIST WHO SLAUGHTERED EIGHTY OF HIS OWN COUNTRYPEOPLE, it makes you come across as an apologist for Breivik and his murders.
If you did not intend this, my apologies, but you need to be far clearer in your comments. If you think there is ANYTHING of value that can be taken from the views or actions of a man who, in espousing pro-Germanicism, kills 80 of his fellow Norwegians because they disagree with him, then your views on Marxism or anything else must be, to me, entirely suspect. Breivik is crazy. He’s also an asshole. Those two are not of necessity intertwined, but in Breivik’s case they are. Defending his view is the action of a scoundrel.