Photos of Anders Behring Breivik and an Exposition of His Treatise

Anders Breivik is of course the anti-Islamic Norwegian cultural conservative who killed 76 people in two attacks in Oslo, Norway the other day. Much nonsense has been written about these attacks. He wrote a manifesto, which I am currently reading. It’s 1,510 pages long. I’ve only read some of it – about 750 pages or so, but it’s very interesting. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that he is an important political thinker.

He’s simply a political terrorist like Osama bin Laden and his followers. He attacked arguably political institutions – first of all, buildings of the Norwegian state in an attempt to kill the Prime Minister, then later a youth camp for young leaders of Norwegian Labour Party. These are the elite children of the leadership of the party, and most of them will probably go on to become party political operative and even leaders. So it was a political attack by an armed terrorist organization.

The only thing yucky about the attack is that many of those targeted were children. Even if you argue that these kids were going to go on to become party political operatives and leaders, there is something nasty about killing unarmed minors. However, this aspect was overblown, and my analysis showed that about 2/3 of those killed were adults, making them legitimate targets.

I do not think that government officials and adults who are in line to become the future leadership of a political party are “innocent civilians,” sorry. This guy says he’s at war with the state, and in that role, political figures are certainly legitimate targets.

Not that I agree with his ideology or his goals. As a Leftist, of course I am saddened that my comrades were gunned down so cruelly like this. I also don’t agree with his anti-Islamic agenda.

His document is very interesting. I will have more to write about it. Much nonsense has been written about this guy which would have been dispelled with a simple review of his document, which apparently no one bothered to do.

The killer is a Christian fundamentalist. He most certainly is not! In fact, he states in his book that he lacks a personal relationship with Jesus or God. Nevertheless, he prayed before his operation, and he quotes liberally from the Bible, mostly Old Testament verse that dispels the notion that Christianity is a religion of peace. He quotes sections saying that Christians have a right to fight back against their enemies.

What this guy is is a cultural Christian. It’s a phrase he uses a lot. He even supports what he calls atheist Christians and agnostic Christians in his crusade against Islam. He feels that Europe is a culturally Christian continent, and of course he is right. He feels that this nominally Christian culture is in danger from the encroachment of Islam.

The killer is a racist. He’s not really a racist, though he flirts with it a bit. The document is confused in this regard. He states over and over that he is an anti-racist, but that’s not exactly the case either.

For instance, he does not believe that European Whites should breed with non-Whites. He worries about the allegiances of European non-White non-Muslims in the Civil War that he predicts will engulf Europe.

And he recommends that the US be partitioned off into a White state for Whites and a multicultural state for everyone else. So as far as his recommendations for the US go, he’s a White nationalist. He is also very sympathetic to the plight of the South African Afrikaners, and he feels that the Blacks are waging a race war against them. He acknowledges that Gypsies are widely hated, and he wants to set up a homeland for them somewhere in Anatolia after it is heavily cleansed of Muslims.

But he does enlist the support of non-White Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics in his war against the Muslims. He’s had many friends of all different races, and in his personal views, he’s not much of a racialist.

The killer is a fascist. This is more difficult to refute, though he claims to be an antifascist, and he writes a lot about how much he dislikes the National Socialist racists in Europe. In particular, as a Judeophile, he opposes their anti-Semitism, which he sees as ridiculous.

However, at the same time, he also praises certain aspects of National Socialism and offers an apologetics for Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. He acknowledges that the Holocaust occurred, but says that Hitler originally just wanted to deport the Jews, but was forced to exterminate them to get rid of a Fifth Column when the Nazis started losing the war in 1942. Actually, I think the Holocaust started before then. He also approves of National Socialist anti-feminism, monoculture and conservative values.

At the same time, he sees the Nazi card as an albatross around the neck of European nationalists, and he says that they need to break free of that if they are ever going to succeed. He opposes White nationalism for similar reasons, that it will never get majority support from Europeans.

What he wants is majority support for his War on Islam project, and the best way to get that is to chuck the Nazism and White ethnic nationalism. He sees anti-Islamic nationalism as having potentially majority support, and he wants to get rid of all of the problematic elements that could diminish such support.

His political project involves rightwing coups in Europe that overthrow the multiculturalist states. They would then institute a short lived dictatorship in which rights would be suspended. 100-200,000 top level multiculturalist traitors would be hunted down and executed by the new state. Many others would be exiled. Freedom of speech would be curtailed indefinitely under the new regimes as “multiculturalist propaganda” would be banned.

Those Muslims who do not convert out would be deported from Europe back to Muslim lands. Muslim lands in the Balkans, Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt would be conquered and resettled with Greeks, Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Armenians, Assyrians and Copts. This is frankly a fascist project whether he admits it or not.

The killer is mentally ill. Having read through hundreds of pages of his stuff, I do not agree with this charge at all. Some of his politics is a bit confused, but that goes with the territory. On the other hand, the document is lucid, well-written and coherent. Ideologically, it fits together very well. He’s very intelligent and very well-read. His political project is sensible, well thought out and follows logically. He doesn’t believe in conspiracy theory, which makes him less nuts that your average Muslim or American.

The killer is a sociopath. I don’t agree. I think he is just a political terrorist. There are acts of political terrorism occurring all over the world, all the time. Those who engage in them and those who order them are not necessarily sociopaths. They are warriors, either members of militaries or some sort of guerrillas.

He actually seemed somewhat sensitive, and he spent quite a few pages agonizing over the nature of the acts he was about to engage in.

He concluded that Catholic Church absolves sins committed in the defense of religion, in particular in defense a Christian Crusade against Islam. This came up quite a bit back in the day when Crusaders were accused of sin during the various Crusades. The Church concluded that sins committed during the Crusades were absolved by the Church as necessary for the defense of the religion.

In addition, they could be redeemed via indulgences bought up by the collective good deeds of Jesus and the saints. By the theory of indulgences, sinners can redeem their sins by trading them in as it were for redemption. The redemption would be purchased via the good deeds done by Jesus, the saints and other good Christians.

At one point, he launches into an argument about whether it is a good idea to kill 100 to save 1000. He thinks it is.

On the other hand, he also feels that his targets, the multicultural Cultural Marxist elite of Europe, are traitors that need to be killed in order to save the continent from Islam. However, many political terrorists think their victims have it coming. Such a belief is not indicative of sociopathy.

The killers is an anarchist. He is most certainly not. He believes very much in a future fascist-like state. He opposes the current multiculturalist regimes, but that does not make him an anarchist.

The document is rambling, incoherent and consists mostly of cut and paste jobs from other works. None of this is true. It is mostly his own work, and he writes very well. His English is excellent. The document does not ramble but instead follows quite well. It’s very coherent and easy to follow and understand.

The killer was provoked and incited to act by works by such anti-Islamic authors as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Bruce Bawer, Bat Ye’or, Melanie Phillips and Fjordman and Internet sites like the Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs. Although these sites and authors do make many reasonable points about Islam and Muslims, they are fanatical and generally reactionary people. Their opposition to Islam is shrill, over the top and unnecessary.

Their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque was ridiculous. It’s their property, they can build whatever they want to there. Further, that Sufi order that was building the mosque represents the sort of modernism that Islam needs to cultivate.

In addition, all of these people and websites are ferociously Zionist. Zionism is a racist, fascist, ethnic nationalist and settler colonial project. No matter what you think of Muslims, those Jews stole every inch of that land over there. Further, they stole land from a lot of Eastern Christians as well. They are presently engaged in an objectively fascist ethnic nationalist project involving apartheid and ethnic cleansing. On these grounds, Zionism cannot be supported by anyone on the Left of good conscience.

These authors and blogs do amount to purveyors of hate speech I suppose, but I support hate speech. Their attempts to wiggle out of the intellectual authorship of this shooting are pathetic. They definitely laid the groundwork for this attack.

Given the reactionary, shrill, Zionist and fanatical nature of this movement, it’s beyond me why I should support it.

But it brings up an interesting question. Many of these reactionaries are defending the secular, feminist, open, pro-gay and modern nature of the Judeo-Christian West against a ferociously backwards, barbaric, Medieval, imperialistic and reactionary religion called Islam. Why is it up to the Right to defend secularism, atheism, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, gay rights, women’s rights, the right to drink and smoke and modernism itself against barbarism and obscurantism?

Why has the Left, which has always championed civil liberties, freedom of conscience, opposition to fundamentalism, women’s and gay rights, liberal lifestyles, the Sexual Revolution, secularism, atheism and agnosticism, and the very modernist project itself relinquished this task to a bunch of Jewish, Hindu and Christian reactionary kooks, many of whom are backwards and fundamentalist themselves? Why has the Left thrown in its lot with this Medieval religion? I don’t get it.

The killers has no point or legitimate project. Unfortunately, he does have a point and a legitimate project. Islam frankly has been a total disaster in Western Europe. Importing millions of Muslims, most of whom will never assimilate, into the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Germany has been a complete catastrophe. It’s time to admit that it’s a failure.

A few Muslims are not much of a problem, but over a certain percentage, they are simply not compatible with a modern, Western, secular, culturally Christian state. Projections showing an Islamic Europe in 70 years or so are terrifying. There’s not much to do about it except to stop importing them to Western Europe.

Many nations of the West don’t have a Muslim problem yet. These include the nations of Eastern Europe, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the US and New Zealand. In most cases, the Muslim percentages here are low. The US % is .7%, which is quite manageable. But what happens as that number grows?

Deporting Muslims is not doable, so the countries with Muslim problems above should simply stop importing them and hope their birth rate slows down. The Muslim nations of Albania, Bosnia, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan already have below replacement birth rates. 15% of Muslims in the West are leaving Islam already. If you quit importing them, the problem may well take care of itself.