In a previous post I quoted a stub article on Anders Behring Breivik that Hunter Wallace later expanded. It is amazing to witness that even Dennis Mangan has tacitly implied that he is too coward to discuss the events at Norway. OK, Mangan’s is not a white nationalist site: but besides the stub article at Occidental Dissent only Prof. Kevin MacDonald has been capable of seeing the catastrophic event objectively.
Below, MacDonald’s “The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik” minus a very long Breivik quotation that comprises most of the professor’s article:
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, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam. 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, Kosovo). Based on his reading of history, he believes that the triumph of Islam would unleash horrific repression and violence against Europeans and against all manifestations of traditional European culture. It would be the end of European civilization based on Christianity and ordered liberty.
He also has a 1500-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,” described to me as typically the children of leftist elites. 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 that the Frankfurt School is a Jewish intellectual movement or 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, one of the main thrusts 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 Party in 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.
* * *
My 2 cents:
Well… Stalinist actions upon us only if we white people continue to behave as we have behaving every day since the Battle of Stalingrad: like meek sheep en route to the slaughterhouse. This is what I responded to Greg Johnson at the most recent article at Counter-Currents:
@ “He might inspire copycats, but lone gunmen, even a lot of them, do not overthrow governments. It is far more likely that this will set our cause back, not advance it.”
But here’s where I agree with Pierce, who wrote Hunter as a more likely scenario than his Turner Diaries. The point is, if westerners have become so deracinated with the panem et circences that the System feeds upon them, why haven’t hundreds, thousands of Hunters cropped up? You know that Pierce dedicated his novel to an actual serial killer of mixed couples. I can only imagine the impact of a growing number of Breiviks throughout the West… Yes: unlikely. But I was imagining it as a sort of Gedankenexperiment to ponder the moral issue of Breivik’s deeds.