Monday, July 25, 2011 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Breivik's political opinions

The main "intellectual" message of the Norwegian mass killer is "summarized" in this intimidating manifesto:

2083: a European Declaration of Independence (PDF)

Backup links
With its 1,500 pages, it's more modest than the 1905-page manifesto of Mitchell Heisman who committed suicide in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But holy cow: this is quite a piece of text for a young farmer.



The text explains the background of the "European Civil War" that should abolish the existence of cultural Marxists and non-European cultures on the old continent by 2083. Breivik wanted the trial to be public and to explain to the world public why he "had" to do it. But the Norwegian lawyers will try to do their best to silence the mass killer and to close the door which will inevitably create some speculations that they're trying to hide something nontrivial or explosive (although I have no idea what it could be).

He may just need some publicity for his radical anti-Islamist opinions - to loudly read from the freely available PDF file above - so if they silence him, it's not too much a censorship from my point of view.




The mass murder itself remains shocking for me. It is both scary as well as incomprehensible. I just don't understand what the young people affiliated with the Labor Party who are having fun on some summer youth camp - and perhaps some random people on the street of Oslo - have to do with all the ambitious political plans. They were innocent children and young people, weren't they?

Was their death needed just in order to increase the readership of the PDF document above? Can he fail to see that this is too high a price? Why he didn't try to compete on the market of ideas and offer his analyses to the potential readers in a somewhat (by 76 casualties) less violent way?

Maybe if he tried to speak to them, he could have found out that they were fun people and half of them, despite the apparent links to the Labor Party and their apparent brainwashing, could have been revealed as closet conservatives or convinced to be conservatives. If not, what you can do.

At any rate, I don't think that today, in 2011, there exists a problem in Europe that could even remotely justify the killing of dozens of this young people who attend a summer camp. Sorry but this looks unforgivable to me - unforgivable at the level of a death penalty which doesn't exist in Norway. I may speculate and I often speculate about the future in which tough decisions may have to be made to avert threats that are worse than anything we are seeing today but this mass murder didn't occur in the future. It occurred a few days ago and given this fact, it's unforgivable.

At the same moment, I won't join the hypocritical game in which people are trying to pretend that they can't possibly have any overlap with Breivik - arguably to improve their image. Sorry, I think that James Delingpole is just great and I admire him for many reasons but his article trying to dismiss the very statement that Breivik is a right-wing person seems just utterly indefensible to me.

The 1500-page manifesto says many things and if I were given this text before the murder and had the freedom to say what I thought about it, of course that I would agree with a significant part of it. Well, as you can see, I just indirectly said that I agree with many things in it. There are also many things I disagree with. After all, he enumerates the "real allies" he thinks to have in various countries and in the Czech Republic, this includes the traditional neo-Nazi parties that people like me have no proximity with (and that are largely defunct these days, anyway).

But he also says many things that I obviously agree with. He quotes our president Václav Klaus' opinions about the EU; recommends a talk by Lord Monckton; explains that environmentalism and global warming are not about the climate but about a new world order, and so on. No, he doesn't cite your humble correspondent. Instead, he chooses to copy from Unabomber: that's too bad. The death of 76 people in Norway is terrible but I would find it dishonest to suddenly say that I/we don't agree with some of his points. I do agree with a nonzero fraction of them.

Breivik says that Christianity didn't play any role.

Obviously, I don't share his opinions about lots of things. I am simply not scared by Islam in "any concentration", as you may find obvious given the large number of people from all conceivable ethnic groups that I've had friendly relations with in my life. If there's a worry, it's a worry that Islam may overtake Europe and become the official, majority-sponsored regime. But if you could guarantee that this won't happen, I just see nothing wrong about a few Muslims anywhere in Europe. Efforts to introduce any purity - ethnic or cultural - just look like ordinary fascism to me and I've been always strongly opposed to it.

Interestingly, the word "Czech" is mentioned about 20+ times in the manifesto. He also praises the Beneš decrees that expelled Germans from Czechoslovakia after the war - and declares them to be a plausible template for the expulsion of Muslims from Europe. And he cites Czechia as one of the three least multiculti brainwashed countries in Europe.

You could think that 20+ copies of the word "Czech" is a lot. However, if you search for any other nation, you may find similar or higher numbers. For example, Hungarians are mentioned about 50 times. It's a 1500-page book about politics so you can be sure that you will find quite something in it.

It's a popular attitude to view this guy as nothing else as a lonely nutcase. But be real. My estimate of the number of people in the world below 35 years of age who could write a similarly extensive (1500 pages), relatively coherent, and formally nearly flawless (compare it with your generic crackpot) book about politics is less than 0.1%. This guy is clearly no random chap who only differs by psychological instabilities or problems from others. He's more intelligent than a vast majority of humans. In this sense, much like his strongly held right-wing and nationalist opinions, intelligence itself is partly a culprit in this mass murder - which is perhaps another inconvenient truth for many intelligent people on all sides of the political and apolitical spectrum.

While I don't share any of his desires to "culturally purify" Europe or any of these basic plans, I do realize that his opinions are unquestionably right-wing opinions. Even though I consider "right-wing" to be a largely positive adjective, I would agree that even according to the definition that seems sensible to me, this mass killer would almost certainly qualify as much more right-wing a person than myself. Try to do a similar comparison with yourself.

If there happened to be any TRF reader who could remotely think about anything comparable, let me try to invest my potential authority to discourage her from similar plans. There's absolutely no justification for any similar acts in current Europe which is why even your ideological allies with end up shocked and puzzled about any such an act. There is nothing special about the year 2083, either.

Your 1500-page manifesto may surely find lots of readers who know where you're coming from - but how it's linked to the killing of 76 particular young people on a summer camp will inevitably remain a mystery for your foes as well as your allies. Others won't understand what was so wrong with those young people. Others will realize that these young people have never hurt us - not even made us upset - in any way whatsoever. No one really knows them. They've been innocent and they don't even seem to be important culprits in whatever undesirable trends that may be taking place in contemporary Europe and the world.

Meanwhile, the leftwingers are already using the mass murder to "identify" right-wing values and killing. Well, I understand it: I may have done something remotely similar in the past in the opposite direction and be sure that right-wingers have recently had more "opportunities" for such talking points. But let me tell you something: these analogies are a double-edged sword. Left-wingers have often silently used some anger - that led to murders etc. - as an "argument" to promote their goals in the peaceful context as well.

So let me just say that this tragedy shows that this logic may work in the opposite direction as well. Apparently ultrapolite right-wing people may also build their anger and do some shockingly horrifying things. And they may even be more efficient while killing - and the probable reason is that Breivik (or his potential counterparts) may have a higher IQ than your garden variety left-wing or Islamic terrorist. Left-wing and various anti-West politicians are no longer the only ones who may secretly build on some "attack dogs" in the background while publicly dismissing any violence.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (1) :


reader simple citoyen said...

My reaction is a bit similar to Deadwood's.
I have to confess I'm not interested enough to have read the pdf, but looked at the posted video. And though the end is (almost surprisingly) different from the first half, it is difficult to conceive that the exposed matters would entail such acts.
Also, if he is as you say so intelligent, he may well have surmized all would be done to limit the exposure of his testimony.
And last of course, short of thinking a civil war is indeed at hand, such acts are simply counter-productive, all the more so they are de facto blind and gratuitous violence more than anything else and cannot be seen or tolerated as such, y compris by those he thought to appeal to.
So in the end what did he achieve except take innocent lives? Nothing of any value to the "cause" he purposed to forward.
Honnestly, to me all this is incomprehensible, and makes me believe in his irrationality and probable mental sickness or that we do not know yet the whole truth, just the story as it has been written for us.