Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Breivik's odd political combination

One of my readers made this comment about the Norwegian gunman Breivik:

I think it's a bit far-fetched to to do any analysis whatsoever of his political views, he's just a nutjob.

Having read more of his manifesto I'm increasingly inclined to agree. It's not that his writing is deranged like that of Jared Loughner. But there is still something mentally "not quite right" about it. For instance, when discussing which platform he should choose Breivik rejects "hateful" ideologies and "controversial views" because these do not have "mass appeal". He then admits that he himself is part of a "relatively cynical/cruel/goal oriented armed resistance group" but believes nonetheless that this group is supported by 50-60% of Europeans "due to the fact that we oppose ALL hate ideologies and we consider it illogical to fight hate with hate." But he then immediately adds that "this does not mean that we will use less brutal methods in our operations."

He seems to think something along the lines of "we will win support by having nice beliefs whilst carrying out cynical/cruel acts of violence".

Here is how he explains why he did not join a national or ethnocentric group:

I understand that many nationalists only care for their own nation and culture. However, all Western Europeans are in the same situation ... Pooling resources and especially knowledge is essential. Obviously, this cannot be achieved if you require that your potential members follow un-appealing principles and codes such as that of the national anarchists (at least many of them). A hateful ideology (white supremacist), death metal, Odinism, conspiracy theories does NOT have mass appeal. Some of the local nationalist factions have very controversial views and lifestyles that do not appeal to a broad specter of people. ...so called national anarchists will never be potent enough unless they pool their knowledge base with pan-European organisations. Mass appeal should be the most essential factor in this strategy. Obviously, the PCCTS, Knights Templar does not have mass appeal as we are a relatively cynical/cruel/goal oriented armed resistance group. However, our primary foundational principles (a majority of them) still have mass appeal and are supported by as many as 50-60% of all Europeans. The reason for this is due to the fact that we oppose ALL hate ideologies and we consider it illogical to fight hate with hate. Of course, this does not mean that we will use less brutal methods in our operations.

He also explains in this part of the manifesto why he chose to go with Christianity. It was for pragmatic political reasons rather than from any theological commitment. He thought that the Odinism (paganism) of some Norwegian rightists would alienate central and southern Europeans:

Q: Why did you choose an allegiance to a group with Christian values and pan-European goals instead of a purely national/regional group?

A: Many have asked this question. My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage. My choice was based purely pragmatism. All Europeans are in this boat together so we must choose a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great number of Europeans – preferably up to 50% (realistically up to 35%). Choosing a local/national group would be counterproductive as all the groups I am familiar with are Odinist orientated and not Christian identity groups. It is essential that we choose a banner that has the potential to appeal towards central and southern Europeans as well.

It's odd that he should answer "Many have asked this question." Who could possibly have asked him this given he kept his project a secret fromt he world? But note again that he chose Christianity, on pragmatic grounds, as a "banner" rather than as a religion.

A few other observations. According to his manifesto Breivik rejected ordinary political work for change as early as the year 2000 when he was about 21 and that he met up with the "justiciar knights" group when he was 23. If true, that means that his political course was set many years before he could have come into contact with writers like Fjordman.

He also claims that this "justiciar" group was aiming to achieve its goals in the year 2083. That's odd too. If it's such a long term, multi-generational strategy, then why not take the time instead to build up a political movement? Why go off on a sudden rampage?


  1. Here's my take on it:
    Breivik had a strong desire to show that he was on the side of the angels - he was killing people like WW2 underground resistance fighters killed people, not like Nazis killed people. He thought of himself like Churchill ordering an attack on Nazi Germany. The Nazis were a nationalist, racist group, so Breivik must be a trans-nationalist, anti-racist fighter, part of a united Europe fighting the Nazi scourge.

    His original plans included Gramscian warfare to form conservative education and media institutions and take over liberal ones. I'm not sure why he decided to snap to violence instead. (I'm fairly sure why he became violent in the abstract, but not why he changed tactics.) Here are some guesses:
    1 - Breivik came about to thinking that democracy had failed and that violence was inevitable and necessary, so started fighting.
    2 - Breivik thought that he had accumulated sufficient "good cop" support that he could play "bad cop" in a scenario where the bad cop makes demands and threats backed with violence, and the good cop suggests making concessions and giving in to avoid antagonizing the bad cop.
    3 - Breivik thought that he could kickstart his movement and/or make the opposition lose self-assurance by such an act of violence.
    4 - Breivik thought that shooting janissaries, both to reduce enemy forces and destroy recruitment, had priority, or at least had superior marginal effect, over anything else he could be doing.

  2. Why go off on a sudden rampage?

    Perhaps Breivik thought that if he killed future leftist European leaders (children of liberal elitists?) that this would help tremendously.

  3. It was for pragmatic political reasons rather than from any theological commitment.

    Atheist Sam Harris believes that Anders Breivik was not a Christian as well and agrees with your assessment amazingly ---> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/

  4. Here's my other take on it (4 options):

    1 - Killer may have been framed (by whom I'm not exactly sure).

    2 - Inspiration from pagan heritage to carry out killings and become a hero to his idols.

    3 - Mental instability combined with dialogues he shouldn't even be having with terrorist groups (weapons expert training and groups).

    4 - Norwegians constantly betraying their own nation made them dead in his eyes. They were no longer his "fellow Norwegians" and he needed to eradicate them. He snapped.

  5. I don't know what his intent was but the result of releasing a manifesto with quotes from every person in the English speaking world who has ever said anything negative about Islam is causing some of these dignitaries great discomfort.

    Whether this was intentional or not depends greatly on the gunman's point of view.

  6. "Many have asked this question"

    The voices inside his head, I assume.

    My first thought was that he had descended into the nihilism that follows from a "there's no hope" worldview. Then, after seeing some of his manifesto, I thought of him as a calculating/rationalizing type. Now, I think you might be right. He's just nuts.

  7. "He seems to think something along the lines of "we will win support by having nice beliefs whilst carrying out cynical/cruel acts of violence"."

    That's what the Allies did in World War II.

    Historian Richard Overy pushes an even sharper version of that line, giving great, maybe decisive credit to allied terror bombing, combined with an Allied moral advantage in mobilizing for the war effort. Remember, this war effort consisted in vital part in actions like the fire bombing of Hamburg, actions that were measured for their success by civilian deaths, the more the better.

  8. It appears that Breivik lifted some large portions of the Unibomber's manifesto, changed key words, and included it in his own rant. That seems like a rather large clue in and of itself.

  9. The pagan/christian conversation is very common.

    I've had that conversation many times. I think being Australian, you're out of touch with some of the Scandinavian cultural aspects.

  10. Like in Scandinavia, there are people who are really still vikings. In fact, some even still speak the old norse languages.

    Amongst these types, there is a bitterness towards modern day Christianity that then reminds people of how the Christians treated the pagans.

    Christians were not very nice towards the pagans.

    But Christianity won. I personally think Christianity 'won' because it was so much better of a religion. I guess you could say Christians used violence in some situations, but overall had a much softer message than the Cruel Nordic Gods.

    But The Arrow of the Rood Christianity where Christ was depicted as a "hero god" with all of the good qualities was heavily influenced by the germanic/pagan/viking types. That's why Christianity was so awesome back in the medieval ages.

    The Christianity of today, where some long-haired unkempt guy in a white dress hugs people (preferably non-white children), is very unnappealing to anyone with common sense.
    Which is why so many people are secular now.

  11. "If it's such a long term, multi-generational strategy, then why not take the time instead to build up a political movement?"

    Cuz of the birthrate of the immigrants obviously!

    We have a choice, bully the white traitors-- 'our own'-- now into stopping this madness. Or wait till there's an 'all or nothing' war between whites and muslims.

    If you want to wait for the all out war that will involve one group getting completely exterminated. That's perfectly fine and understandable.

    If it takes till 2083 to get the party built. Then what do you think that party is going to do? Cuz you know..the Muslims who have lived in a country for 100 years are going to repatriate so easily.

  12. Anon, Breivik's "group" (if it exists) thought that they had 80 years to achieve victory. If you believe you have that long, then you have more than enough time to build up a political resistance.

    What I find unusual about some of the thinking going on is that nobody has ever bothered to challenge liberalism politically in a sustained way. People are way too defeatist. They come to oppose liberalism, assume though that liberalism is politically invulnerable, and then go off on a tangent. Meanwhile the liberal theorists discuss amongst themselves the strange phenomenon that nobody ever attacks them at the level of principle.

    Let's say, anon, you're right and it's important to slow down immigration. In Australia in the 90s there was a group set up to campaign for that (AAFI). It had considerable success, because a few people were committed enough and courageous enough to get it going. It was a group that was neither extreme nor overly compromising.

    If your objection is that a leader of the group would face attack in the liberal media, well, they would but to a much lesser degree than someone who takes a more violent course of action. So why not take the political option?

    I want to reiterate that the purpose of this site is exactly to model a principled, non-liberal politics. Ideally, people would find some of the arguments and analysis here valuable and would then engage others in political conversation (easily done on the net) and influence the wider political debate. The first major aim being to break apart the monopoly that left and right liberalism has in framing the political conversation; the second aim being to bring at least some members of the political class over to a traditionalist politics.

  13. Anonymous: "I guess you could say Christians used violence in some situations, but overall had a much softer message than the Cruel Nordic Gods."

    Exactly: "we will win support by having nice beliefs whilst carrying out cynical/cruel acts of violence"."

  14. Mark Richardson, your way is a good one and Anders Behring Breivik's way is a wrong one, if only because the lone nut with a gun theory of politics never ever works. The masses never rise up. The trumpet always sounds in vain.

    There is zero chance that anything good will come of this, and that is with a fairly intelligent man (though no Unabomber) planning both his violence and his propaganda as diligently as he could.

    Nevertheless, don't you see the simple and obvious (if wrong) appeal of the logic Anders Behring Breivik followed? It is not "odd".

    He followed the line that usually wins: soft, appealing doctrines (pro-gay, anti-racist and so on) combined with violent force. That is the line that has been winning for the Left (free lunch and Che shirts for all), and that won for Christianity before it, and so on.

    You are saying: here are these relatively complicated and less superficially appealing truths, which I will count on to prevail with all the guns of academia, the mass media, job discrimination and law loaded against them, and though they have already been chased out of the arena; and while Islam marches on gaining advantages by intimidation, our side will never do that.

    If nature was so ordered that unarmed hard truths were dominant over sticky-sweet doctrines and violence, American Renaissance conferences would be highly influential. Instead, they cannot be held at all.

    You're the one that's correct. But you are also the one that's odd, in terms of what works historically.

  15. Why wasn't the AAFI successful? What happened to them?


    Pauline Hanson---who had the ability to be the true leader of a purely political peaceful movement that would have succeeded....

    Was put in Jail.

  16. Anon,

    AAFI won a large percentage of the vote in several by elections (20% if I remember correctly). It was a rank and file activist organisation.

    Its success was in persuading the Liberal Party to slow the pace of immigration for quite a number of years.

    AAFI made the decision to dissolve and to join the emerging new parties.

    I disagree with your assessment of Pauline Hanson. She did not have the necessary intellectual or organisational skills to lead a political movement. She crashed it.

  17. Other anon, I'll respond to your list of people/groups who have challenged liberalism when I have more time later today.

  18. I think one of the reasons why there hasn't been any sustained attack against liberalism.

    Is that people like Tony Abbott (a conservative) actually campaigned to get people like Pauline Hanson in jail.

    Tony Abbott wasn't smart enough to see that Pauline was trying to help him. So the end result was nothing ever gets done.

  19. (and Abbott saw that by going against Pauline he would ingratiate himself and get ahead in his party)

  20. You're the one that's correct. But you are also the one that's odd, in terms of what works historically.

    Daybreaker, that's a thoughtful comment. And I agree with you that in politics it's not necessarily the case that the "right idea" is going to win out.

    In Australia in the 1980s and 90s the key liberal policies had little public support. They got pushed through regardless because there was nobody in the political class to represent public opinion. Politics was just the usual contest between left and right liberals.

    In my own 20 years engagement with politics I've watched several waves of opportunity pass by because of the lack of a relatively small number of leaders. In the mid-90s, for instance, it would have been very possible to build an enduring traditionalist political movement in Australia - if there had been just 50 to 100 capable people to lead it.

    It's my intention to make sure that we get to the 50 to 100 capable people stage so that any future waves can be caught.

    Don't forget either what happened to the Eastern Bloc. That seemed like a permanent fixture right up to the end. It wasn't really defeated by force - if the party leaders had really wanted to send in the tanks they could have done so. It fell because people stopped believing - the reality and the ideology grew too far apart - and because of the political challenge of groups like Solidarity. It hollowed out and became brittle and fell when pushed at the end.

  21. Marxist socialist journalists are having a field day with loose-cannon Anders Breivik (although British journalist Peter Hitchins probably has one of the better analysis as to why Breivik went on a murder spree).

    Nevertheless here are extracts from one editorial of a New Zealand newspaper: "Breivik was single, estranged from his family...had no apparent girlfriend, appeared to be a loner and a right-wing Christian with deeply intolerent views of those who did not share his own - including, and specifically - Muslims.

    "More likely he [Breivik] is a tragic individual seduced by the enclosed logic of his own hardline beliefs and echoed by those of other extremists who, finding themselves at odds with the majority, resort to mass murder in an attempt to impose their own world views.

    "...it is also a signal to society...of the dangers of singular ideologies characterised as they often are by intolerance - and absolutist, and frequently messianic, beliefs - which its followers will stop at nothing to spread. That way lies the utter rejection of civilised consensus..."

    I doubt if the journalist who wrote the editorial was able to see the hypocrisy and double standards of his own ideology in the words he wrote. In between the lines I suspect the journalist was saying, mass open immigration and multiculturalism are now the accepted beliefs of the vast majority of Western European peoples no matter where they live. In other words the Marxist/Globalist worldview has conquered all, for any conservative type views re immigration, pluralism etc are now irrelevant.

    Personally, from a Christian perspective, I consider the likes of Breivik to be just another agent provocateur; another wolf in sheeps clothing utilised to damage any "politically-incorrect" traditionalist stance. After all, (spiritual) deception is the name of the game. Something most folk do not understand.

  22. Sorry, Mr Richardson, I should have made it clear with my last paragraph above, that with the world system of power deception is the name of the game. And the Bible makes it clear who is the father of lies.

    Refer also Ephesians chapter 6, verse 12.

  23. Totally random Mark,

    Your paragraph on why the Soviet Union fell saying 'people no longer believed' is not true.

    First, well obviously because everyone was dead.

    But also because the 'bad guys' had moved on or had gotten displaced. Literally. If you look at the photos of all the party leadership up until the death of Stalin...they were all black eyes and black hair---They were not Ethnically Russian. But then with Krushchev you got a bunch of Nordic types with blue eyes who were Ethnically Russian. By then the 'bad guys' were already leaving the USSR for greener pastures, and the ethnic Russians were starting to take back their country.

  24. Daybreak, that was an excellent post. I wish I had the talent to express myself in that manner.

  25. I also found it odd that the killer should name his 'organisation' after the Knights Templar's and give a historical overview of the Crusades yet make no mention of Just War Theory.

    A theory that has underpinned the Western attitude to war and one you'd believe any true Christian would give serious consideration to before launching there own holy war.

  26. Anonymous (Wednesday, 27 July 2011 2:14:00 PM AEST), thanks. :)

  27. Mark Richardson the blogger Catholic Knight has found the reasons for Breivik's odd political combination ---> http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/07/breaking-oslo-terrorist-is-freemason.html

    Anders Breivik is a Freemason. Only Catholics bloggers around the far-right and traditional conservative blogosphere have so far noticed this aspect. I believe this is due to the fact that the Catholic Church is the biggest critic of Freemasonry.

  28. If nature was so ordered that unarmed hard truths were dominant over sticky-sweet doctrines and violence, American Renaissance conferences would be highly influential. Instead, they cannot be held at all.

    This is perhaps a feature of humanity's rebellion starting at the Garden of Eden. They would rather have sin than follow the truth and what God desired.

    There's also the whole thing of Satan dressing up as an Angel of light and deceiving many.