Hitler had his Jewish problem. Anders Breivik, his Muslim problem. The more I read of Breivik’s manifesto, A European Declaration of Independence, the more it appears to me a latter-day version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Remember that when the dictator-to-be wrote his magnum opus he had not yet devised the formula for the Final Solution. He knew what the problem was (Jews) and had some ideas about how to deal with it, but he hadn’t come up with the policy of genocide adopted at the 1942 Wansee Conference. So Breivik sees clearly that the problem for Europe is Muslims (rather than Jews). They are the common “foreign” body infecting the pure western European gene pool. But Breivik hasn’t yet developed a genocidal policy to accompany this realization. He only states that Muslims must be removed from Europe (and the western world, including Israel), not that they must be exterminated.
But given that Breivik forecast that his right-wing revolution would not succeed till 2083, we can only wonder at what sort of Final Solution there would be for the Muslim problem in Europe by then.
While Breivik’s views in one major particular diverge from those of Hitler, in many other ways they mirror each other precisely. As for the difference, Breivik only sees SOME Jews as the problem. Those are the Marxist Jews in the Diaspora and Israel, the ones embracing multiculturalism. They are the enemy. But the Norwegian neo-Nazi views Zionist Israel, as represented by anti-jihadis like Avigdor Lieberman, as what he calls “cultural cousins.” Israel is the far-right’s friend in this view because this is a nation that hates Islam and will expel the Muslims living within it.
Interestingly, John Hagee’s views of Jews and Israel are very similar. Hagee too believes that secular Jews and Jewish political leftists are the enemies of Christianity and the ones who will die in the End Times. Israel, that is Zionist Israel living out the Biblical dream, will survive in his world view. They will be the saving remnant, and of course the group that will eventually turn to accept Jesus as Christ. Hagee’s best friends in Israel, the settlers and political leaders like Avigdor Lieberman, are precisely the ones admired most by Breivik.
Hitler too railed against Jewish Bolsheviks and saw them as the heart of all evil. Perhaps had Hitler lived to see the creation of the State of Israel he too might’ve modified his views about Jews (or conversely, had Hitler lived there might never have been a State of Israel). At any rate, Muslims play the same role Jews did for Hitler in the Breivik universe. They are the irredeemably evil.
But interestingly, while Hitler chose to attack Jews unmercifully almost from the beginning of his political career, Breivik chose not to attack Muslims physically at all. Instead, he chose to attack the heart of the ‘Marxist multicultural’ beast, Norway’s ruling party and institutions of state. To his mind, the rightist revolution would resonate most with an attack on the soft underbelly of the state, rather than on the nation’s Muslims. For Breivik, Marxists like those of the Norwegian Labor Party and the hated European Union, are collaborators with the Muslim enemy. The former are the ones who will enable to latter to overrun Europe. And because these collaborators are white Christians like himself, they are race traitors. All of which probably justifies attacking them, before going on to ‘getting the job done’ against Muslims. Here is his underlying thinking on the subject:
Why armed resistance against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe is the only rational approach
Multiculturalism, like drugs, is an insidious weapon. Both destroy the heart and fabric of a people. All ties to family, community, and one’s people as a whole are destroyed by these two opiates of the human mind. Both are sponsored from the top down by one world elitists bent upon creating a world order who’s power is such that its subjects posses no potential for resistance.
…War or armed resistance has traditionally always been used as a last resort, when dialogue has proven to ineffective. The justification for use of armed resistance against the European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist systems is tied to the outlook for cultural conservative political success. You have to ask yourself; is it remotely possible under the current conditions that a conservative, monocultural political party will ever gain substantial political influence? An increasing number of Europeans are opening their eyes to the reality that the democratical struggle through dialogue has been lost. The cultural Marxists have institutionalised multiculturalism and have no intention of ever allowing us to exercise any political influence of significance. In theory we, the cultural conservatives of Europe, have become slaves under an oppressive, tyrannical, extreme left-wing system with absolutely no hope of reversing the damage they have caused. At least not democratically..
Breivik made common cause with other European far-rightist groups like the English Defense League (whose name may be a deliberate echo of the Jewish Defense League), Geert Wilders and others. One factor that they all share is pro-Israelism. For them, the enemy of my (Muslim) enemy is my friend. That’s precisely why Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Bat Yeor and other Jewish anti- jihadis find the European far-right so attractive. And it’s a reason why all of them are so dangerous. Not in the way that Breivik is physically dangerous. But intellectually and politically dangerous. Scott Shane wrote an interesting story about this today in the Times.
The Norwegian mass-murderer may’ve killed regardless of whether Geller et al. existed. But his certitude in his cause and the intellectual underpinnings of it come from them. Without them, he may’ve just been a malcontent searching for a cause. With them, he had a cause to live and die–and kill others–for.
Yesterday, I identified a number of interesting quotations from the Breivik manifesto and excerpted them in a post. I’ve continued my review and there are several more quotations I’d like to offer. This deals with the issue of expulsion of Muslims from Europe with a clear parallel to the policy of transfer advocated by Israeli nationalist rightists (including Lieberman, though in a slightly more refined articulation). The call to action that concludes it is chilling and reveals that all that separates Breivik from Geller, Spencer et al. is the former’s willingness to take up arms, while the the latter do everything but:
Future deportations of Muslims from Europe
“It’s difficult to discuss deportation of Muslims openly in a society where it is not even allowed to discuss Islam…”
The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe – Fjordman, Spencer, Ye’or, Bostom etc. aren’t actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe. If these authors are to scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.
Here Breivik outlines the need to rid oneself of the human impulse for mercy in this Christian conservative revolutionary jihad. This passage distills his method to its pure essence:
The process of destroying and replacing the current cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe will not be easy or painless….
As a Justiciar Knight you are operating as a jury, judge and executioner on behalf of all free Europeans. Never forget that it is not only your right to act against the tyranny of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe, it is your duty to do so. There are situations in which cruelty is necessary, and refusing to apply necessary cruelty is a betrayal of the people whom you wish to protect.
The preferred method is to attack in a violent and deceptive form (shock attack), usually with limited forces (1-2 individuals). Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike. Explain what you have done (in an announcement distributed prior to operation) and make certain that everyone understands that we, the free peoples of Europe, are going to strike again and again. Do not apologise, make excuses or express regret for you are acting in self-defence or in a preëmptive manner. In many ways, morality has lost its meaning in our struggle. The question of good and evil is reduced to one simple choice. For every free patriotic European, only one choice remains: Survive or perish. Some innocent will die in our operations as they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Get used the idea. The needs of the many will always surpass the needs of the few.
In a subsequent passage, Breivik notes that the number of acceptable dead in this revolutionary coup d’état would be 45,000 (with 1-million wounded), which corresponds, in his delusional mind, to the numbers that the Marxist political élite have killed in their drive for continental dominance. He notes that some conservatives also include in the number of those killed aborted fetuses, which raises the number to 2-million.
In this terrorist’s universe, the goal of overturning the Eurabian regime justifies use of weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons, which he goes to great lengths to specify. He even speculates on the possibility of negotiating with Israel (noting that Israeli nationalists would be most likely to be sympathetic to his cause) for access to nuclear weapons though he concedes that Israel is unlikely to do so until it sees clear signs that his revolution is nearing success.