Reading through Anders Breivik’s manifesto is quite interesting. I thought I’d share a few passages from it for your comment. The thing that jumps out is that his rhetoric echoes perfectly the claims of the American nativist right.
The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behaviour of individuals.
Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the
middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all minorities,
what they see as the victims; Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some
additional minority groups as virtuous and they view ethnic Christian European men as
A handy rule of thumb in political discourse is that if someone uses the phrase “cultural Marxism,” there’s some serious nonsense coming out.
As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Many believed that oppressed Muslims, non European minorities and others like Feminists and Homosexuals could be the
vanguard of a communist revolution in Europe.
Yep, same ridiculous equivalence between anyone who dares to criticize conservative Christian hegemony as a dirty rotten communist. And same randomly capitalized words.
Ultimately, the origins of PC can be traced to the rise of modern ideology and its quest for power. In contrast to the classical and Judeo-Christian traditions, which
stressed man’s need to understand the moral order and conform himself to it, modern
ideologies have sought to dominate and control the world.
Boy, it’s a good thing Christians never sought to dominate and control the world!
How did this situation come about in European universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed that it slipped past traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so “quietly” that when they “looked up”, postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. “They were surrounded by such a tidal wave of multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses” which undermine the perpetuation of Western civilisation. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned – a quiet revolution propagating a European hate ideology with the goal of destroying Western civilisation and which was: anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition, and anti-morality.
And the same old assertion that liberalism is synonymous with post-modernism. Never mind that post-modernism is a tiny subset of the left and is strongly criticized by the rationalist left. Everyone on the right wing’s enemy list must think exactly like their caricatures (though, to be fair, many liberals do the same thing by lumping together every conservative or libertarian and presuming they think the same way).
This passage is particularly ironic:
There is a common misconception regarding Islam and Christianity. A lot of people believe today that Christianity still is and was as evil as Islam?! I can attest to the fact that this is absolutely incorrect. Jihadi motivated killings, torture and enslavement count for more than 10 times as Christian motivated killings. However, the politically correct Western establishments want us to think otherwise.
I don’t doubt for a moment that there is a much higher percentage of Muslims who support terrorism than Christians. But it’s certainly ironic to hear the man who just killed almost 100 people in the most violent attack his nation has ever seen complain about “jihadi motivated killings.” As if it was horrible when Muslims do it but just fine when he does.
It’s far more interesting, as I said before, that he is a right wing nativist than that he was, in some nominal sense, a Christian. When he uses the term “Christian” he really seems to mean “white and European.” And he seems to be as opposed to Christian theocracy as he is to Muslim theocracy:
“As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian ‘culturalist’ military order.”
So let’s not overplay the Christian aspect of this. It’s the right wing ideology that is far more germane.