Reflections on the Norwegian Atrocity

Friday’s acts of mass murder in Oslo and on the island of Utøya have stunned the Norwegian people and shocked the wider world. For what little they are worth in such a situation, we can extend our sympathies and condolences to the bereaved, but such sentiments can never make up for the loss of a loved one, or cure those irreparably maimed by wanton violence of this nature.

As the initial reports came in on Friday, I, like many others, initially suspected a likely Islamist motivation for the Oslo bombing, but as further information began to filter through about shootings at the political summer camp on Utøya, it became apparent that the motivations underpinning this twin atrocity lay elsewhere. Tomorrow, we will hear from the lips of thirty-two-year old Anders Behring Breivik himself what his intentions were in bringing a premature end to the lives of so many. Already though, certain details about his ‘motivations’ and ‘ideology’ are being released via the mainstream media.

Although we cannot be certain, it seems highly likely that this man acted as a lone psychopath, and despite his claims to be a Norwegian nationalist and a defender of Western values, he is nothing of the sort. Nor, for all of his assertions, will he be found to be part of the counterjihad movement. Although those who comprise and support the latter could be said to share certain key aspects of ideology with Breivik relating to their analysis of the Islamisation of European societies and the goal of countering this, nowhere is support given to the idea of using terrorism or any other form of violence to realise their goals. Thus, although to the mainstream media and general public who know little about this area of politics it may appear that Breivik was part of this movement which is routinely and inaccurately denigrated as ‘extremist’, ‘far-right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’, he was nothing of the sort. The counterjihad movement stands for positive values: freedom of speech and expression; one secular law for all; equal rights for men and women and freedom from the threat of violence. It is because doctrinaire Islam stands implacably opposed to all of these values that we oppose it. We do not advocate silencing opponents through the use of the bullet and the bomb, but we demand the right to freely criticise those who would deprive us of our freedoms and rights without being stigmatised as ‘extremists’. We are extremely reasonable, but that is where our ‘extremism’ ends.

Elements of Breivik’s analysis regarding the Islamisation of Europe and the role of the hegemonic memeplex of cultural Marxism propagated by multiculturalist political parties and mass media are indeed common to the thought of a wide swathe of counter-hegemonic thinkers, bloggers and activists across Europe and beyond, whether they classify themselves as nationalists, counterjihadists, identitarians, anti-globalists or straightforward freethinkers and libertarians, but that is where the similarities with Breivik’s position end. Nonetheless, these inconvenient facts are hindering neither the mass media nor pro-multiculturalist governments and parties across Europe from drawing incorrect conclusions, whether these be based upon ignorance, paranoia or a deliberate and nefarious intent to denigrate and destroy all opposition to their multiculturalist project. Thus do the powerful in our societies seek to turn this tragedy to their political advantage, by portraying Breivik as representative of a non-existent ‘neo-Nazi’ (sic) threat comprised of various nationalist and counterjihadist parties, groups and movements.

The risibly named ‘Hope Not Hate’ organisation has not been slow to capitalise upon the opportunity afforded by Breivik’s killing spree, and according to the Daily Mail has called for the EDL to be ‘formally classified as a far-right organisation’. There has even been an attempt to smear the EDL by implying a direct connection with Breivik, whereas there has been no such connection and the EDL has condemned his actions in the strongest terms. It is evident that since the implosion of the BNP, the salaried personnel within ‘Hope Not Hate’ have been looking for a new ‘phantom menace’ to justify its continued existence and campaigning, and have decided that the EDL fits the bill well enough for their purposes. This is despite the fact that the EDL has made it very clear where it stands and by no objective criteria could it be classed as ‘far-right’.

The BBC, as one would expect, has been employing the term ‘neo-Nazi’ in the most cavalier, inaccurate and, one is tempted to say, deliberately malicious manner since Friday’s events in Oslo and Utøya. Indeed, the ideology of anti-Islamisation itself has on a number of occasions been specifically labelled as ‘neo-Nazi’ by BBC television reporters since Friday afternoon. Well, it would seem that in that case, by the BBC’s definition, I am a ‘neo-Nazi’. We’re all ‘neo-Nazis’ now it would seem. What else would one expect from an organisation dominated by cultural Marxism? I can already hear the cries of ‘far-right paranoia’ ringing in my ears, but the fact of the matter is that within the past couple of months one of the regular contributors to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day – the Reverend Canon Giles Fraser – quoted not from scripture, but directly from the Frankfurt School Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse! Not only that, but he made it explicit who Marcuse was and why he was quoting him in an approbatory fashion. Multiculturalism and cultural relativism are cultural Marxism. The BBC espouses and promotes both vigorously, and is thus culturally Marxist in its thoughts and its deeds, both conscious and unconscious. There is no debate to be had on this matter.

The BBC and its ilk are thus happy to slander the counterjihad movement, although in reality, if its viewers, listeners and readers cared to take the time to look for themselves, they would see that the BBC is, to put it generously, not reporting the movement’s views accurately. For example, there is no hiding the expression of spontaneous, unified and natural repulsion on the part of leading and longstanding counterjihad blogs such as Gates of Vienna, Vlad Tepes and The Tundra Tabloids that arose in response to Breivik’s crimes as they became known. Indeed, it is worth quoting the Vlad Tepes blog on this score:

One thing is certain. If blogs like mine or Gates of Vienna or Fjordman etc. can be blamed for inspiring this monster — blogs that have never once advocated violence, that have been firmly against terrorism no matter who it was by, people like Geert Wilders that wish to preserve a culture of modern liberalism and pluralism against the mono-culturalist Islam and its totalitarian illiberal legal ‘system’ — if all these people are to blame, then how can those same people say that the Koran, which is nearly one long solid incitement to terror and murder, rape and taking of slaves, of manifest destiny and mass slaughter and theft of all things belonging to unbelievers, how can those same people who accuse we of the fledgling pro-classical-liberalism, pro-women’s rights and gay rights (to varying degrees, granted), how can they accuse us of being the inspiration to this one lone Norwegian mass murdering monster and yet absolve the Koran for its role in inspiring many of history’s greatest genocides, from the Nazi one (Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans) to the unimaginable genocide of Hindus, causing the Gypsy Diaspora, to Europe, and on, and on, and on.

Breivik may claim that his acts of murder were intended to defend the Norwegian nation and Western civilisation, but in reality this man has done nationalists and counterjihad activists across the whole of Europe a massive disservice: he has handed our enemies a huge propaganda coup. Although we have nothing to do with him and roundly condemn him, we will be stigmatised by association no matter how tenuous and unfounded it may be. Just as the Stephen Lawrence case was used by the last Labour administration to implement and embed its anti-indigenous racist kulturkampf in the UK, so will the advocates of multiculturalism and appeasers of Islam across Europe use Breivik’s atrocity as a means to accelerate and embed their multiculturalist project. This is happening already, as Channel 4 reports that the Metropolitan Police are to launch an investigation into Breivik's claimed links with the EDL. There is thus a considerable risk that the flimsiest of pretexts will be employed to limit the operations of the EDL, or even to proscribe it. How much further might our liberties be whittled away as we become a new phantasmogorical enemy within to which our security agencies will misguidedly devote their attentions?  Breivik, contrary to his self-professed objectives, will thus go down in history as an enabler of the Islamisation of Europe.