the PRODOS blog

Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Anders Behring Breivik: Not a Christian. Not a free marketer.

It is believed the document titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence” by Andrew Berwick is the manifesto of Norwegian shooter, Anders Behring Breivik.

Based on this document …

It is claimed by some that Breivik is a “Christian fundamentalist”.

He’s not.

On page 1307 he writes:

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

Despite the “conclusion” presented, the above statement establishes that he’s not any sort of Christian.

If one doesn’t have a “personal relationship” with Jesus or God, on what basis can one be a “Christian”?

In any case he’s not a “fundamentalist” Christian.

He does not support separation of Church and State

Pg 1405

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

Pg 1375

Q: Is it possible that cultural conservatives and National Socialists will cooperate in the future?
A: … the solution is not to reject Christianity but rather to reform Christianity to re-introduce the concepts of “self-defence” as propagated by former Crusader Popes.

Pg 1309

It is essential that we preserve and even strengthen the Church and European Christendom in general (by awarding it more political influence on certain areas), when it comes to the moral, cultural and social aspects of society. It should even be granted
monopoly on certain areas to strengthen European cohesion/unity ..

 

It is claimed by some that he’s a free market proponent.

He’s not.

He’s in fact a proponent of the Welfare State.

Pg 1224:

We believe in cultural monoculturalism and to a large degree
ethnocentrism because we know that is the only proven way of preserving social cohesion levels is required to facilitate a welfare state. Without social cohesion, no welfare state.

… The reason there is not a decent welfare system in the US is because of lack of social cohesion.

Pg 1195:

…. we should attempt to follow the Scandinavian welfare
model to a certain degree to ensure a solid welfare program to all European citizens.

Pg 1195:

Pure Laissez-faire capitalism is a globalist concept (no government intervention) and has several drawbacks. Many economical protective measures must be in place securing the economical sustainability of our cultural conservative economic zone (European Federation).

Pg 1409:

I was quite bombastic about the issue when I was younger, very pro laissez-fair capitalism, but not anymore. There are so many flaws with the capitalistic system and it has to be regulated to a certain degree. Globalist corporations should be disallowed to lobby for free flow of human capital (removal of borders, mass immigration etc).

I believe in a free market limited to a European economic bloc that will be geographically limited to Europe (with Russia), Northern America and Australia.

I note that he’s strongly pro Russia

Pg 1310:

A cultural conservative “European Federation” will be born … I believe Russia will be an essential partner in this future process as the first country breaking out will rely heavily on Russia.

Pg 1308:

Russia (Their partnership, friendship and support is essential).

One of his key advocacies is the achievement of “monoculture” and racial improvement

Pg 1405
I especially admire the Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese system. These three countries reject multiculturalism outright and have instead focused on maintaining and protecting their monoculture.

 

Pg 1387

“Logic” and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level …
We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives. Instead, we would focus much more of our resources to better ourselves and our communities by channelling at least 20% of the budget to research, science and technology. Good welfare arrangements combined with embracing the ideal of perfection requires a solid cooperation/symbiosis (social cohesion) and is only possible in a monoculture where everyone has complete confidence to everyone.

Pg 1203

… seeking biological perfection is still a logical concept and I don’t see why we should abandon it. We just have to make sure that we offer it as a voluntary option to everyone …

Pg 1196

Using reprogenetics actively to prevent conflict and war … Creating a World Bank of Genotypes would be an anti-racist solidarity project which would contribute to prevent conflict and war. This bank or vault would consist of compilations of all threatened genotypes in the world included the Nordic genotypes, other European genotypes and Jewish Semitic etc. These are some of the current genotypes most threatened by extinction.

.

Report This Post

8 Comments

  1. I’ve been reading the manifesto, too and I’ve come across these ideas before. I heard them from a “white separatist” guy I had a couple of conversations with. That was around 1984, in Ohio. He was interested in eugenics. He was keen on a national religion, too, but he wasn’t particular as to what it would be, just as long as everyone had the same religion for the sake of “social cohesion”. “It may be Christianity, or something else, even something new.” (Breivik, however, is specific about the religion being Christianity.)

    But, unlike Breivik, he was no enemy of Islam, at least not of the Black Muslims and Farrakhan, because Farrakhan believed in separation of the races. He admired and appreciated Farrakhan for this – thought he was a great man. The Ohio white separatist believed that different races (not just different cultures, but races) were simply too different to mix together, to understand each other, to get along morally, and that it should be made illegal for them to mix (not just miscegenation, but as friends, in business, anything). And that they should all be moved into their own sectors, each to live within their own cultures and regions in isolation. (Clearly, he was not an individualist – one who considers the individual to be the primary unit from which rights spring and who has, among other unalienable rights, the right to freedom of association.)

    I’m not sure yet how racist Breivik is. (For example, would he consider that Thomas Sowell should be considered part of American culture and be allowed to live among white people who think like he does? I do not know.) It is very clear, however, that he doesn’t think different *cultures* should mix, that there should be a “monoculture” within which people deal with each other within a region and permit no outside cultural invasion. So far I have not seen him make a distinction, as I do, between “Multiculturalism” and “Pluralism”. His view of how society should work is a formula for totalitarianism, since someone has to be the arbiter of what is the standard of cultural purity – or what one might call “cultural correctness”.

    Back to religion again: Breivik mentions “Odinists” – people who follow the religion of the Norse gods, I suppose. He seems to approve of this, as it is a part of Norse culture. Not something I’d expect from a fundamentalist Christian.

    So far in my reading of Breivik’s manifesto – and I have to admit that at present I have only been doing searches for certain subjects – I have not found any quoting of scriptures or praising of God, as I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian. His approach to Christianity seems cold and utilitarian. It seems to be a social tool to him, not a religious passion, not a matter of literal belief in the Bible or in Jesus as the Word of God. In fact, I’m not even sure that he believes in God. He says: “A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative
    Christians without even knowing it.” And he says that he is not a “religious Christian” but a “Cultural Christian”.

    If a fundamentalist Christian is one who takes the Bible literally, believes in the existence of God and the miracles, and aspires to follow Jesus’ example, Breivik doesn’t fit that profile. However, he is very similar to the white separatist I talked to in Ohio, who was very pragmatic about the “need” for a national religion and a separation of races and cultures.

    Look at that photo. The man has just committed mass murder on a huge scale, up close and personal, and he’s got the most serene, self-satisfied expression on his face. He looks at peace with himself, as if his life’s mission has been accomplished.

    He’s got an almost angelic, sweet face.

    It reminds me of how Bin Laden used to look in his younger days.

    He’s a fanatic, alright. But I’m not convinced that religion is Breivik’s motivator. I think it’s his means to the end of cultural purity.

    Report This Comment

  2. He’s at root a racial conservative; ie a racialist. Prodos, you have dealt with these types before. You wrote an excellent blog post on racialism about 3 or 4 years ago. There is a growing racialist movement in America. It goes by many names: PaleoConservatism, Traditionalism, Bio-Conservatism, Human-Bio-Diversity. Breivik quoted from one of the most popular American racialist, Larry Auster, in his manifesto.

    To sum up Breivik, he saw many of the vile things that are destroying Europe (and the West in general) and he knew enough to link them with the Left. But just like Timmothy McVeigh responded to the governmental atrocity of Waco Texas with an atrocity of his own, Breivik responded to the sickness that is modern Leftism with a sickness of his own. He is an evil and disturbed man. Sadly, he will be used by the Left as a weapon against the best elements of the Classical Liberal / “Conservative” opposition to Leftism. All people who oppose Leftist collectivism will now be branded as potential “Breiviks”; ie potential mass murderers. The Left will do this as a means to destroy anyone who opposes their agenda.

    Breivik has just made the already near impossible task of fighting off the Left even more difficult. For that alone, he deserves to rot in hell.

    Report This Comment

    • Thanks for your comments Jack,

      He’s at root a racial conservative; ie a racialist.

      Yes, that seems to be so.

      He seems to have used or relied upon many of the anti-left, anti-multiculturalism arguments of many sources, including many brilliant and great thinkers.

      He’s adopted some of the things they were AGAINST, but left out – often, brazenly ignoring – most of what they were FOR.

      Prodos, you have dealt with these types before. You wrote an excellent blog post on racialism about 3 or 4 years ago.

      http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=353

      There is a growing racialist movement in America. It goes by many names: PaleoConservatism, Traditionalism, Bio-Conservatism, Human-Bio-Diversity. Breivik quoted from one of the most popular American racialist, Larry Auster, in his manifesto.

      I’m not familiar with most of these references but will try to look into them.

      To sum up Breivik, he saw many of the vile things that are destroying Europe (and the West in general) and he knew enough to link them with the Left.

      I know what you mean, but I’m not convinced that he does see or has ever seen what’s destroying Europe and the West.

      For instance, when he expresses disapproval for such things as “multiculturalism” is he really disapproving of state protected tribalism? Is he really disapproving of individualism being supplanted by collectivism? Is he really against replacing individual creativity and plurality with group identity?

      Far from it.

      But just like Timmothy McVeigh responded to the governmental atrocity of Waco Texas with an atrocity of his own, Breivik responded to the sickness that is modern Leftism with a sickness of his own.

      But Anders Behring Breivik is a Leftie. He’s a Socialist. He is a strong advocate of the Welfare State and of government interventions and controls. He supports social engineering.

      He believes that coercion can be effective.

      He is an evil and disturbed man.

      The point, however, is that his actions are compatible with his left-wing, tribalist, interventionist philosophy. His actions are consistent with his words.

      His resort to using force/murder to achieve his goal, rather than persuasion, debate, discussion is 100% compatible with his nationalist/racialist version of socialism.

      Sadly, he will be used by the Left as a weapon against the best elements of the Classical Liberal / “Conservative” opposition to Leftism. All people who oppose Leftist collectivism will now be branded as potential “Breiviks”; ie potential mass murderers. The Left will do this as a means to destroy anyone who opposes their agenda.

      But where is the evidence that he’s a Classical Liberal or Conservative?

      The evidence of his writings shows quite the opposite.

      Let’s not confuse what Anders Behring Breivik personally believes and advocates with the material that he’s borrowed, cut and paste, from others.

      Let’s not confuse the wolf with the sheep’s clothing.

      Breivik has just made the already near impossible task of fighting off the Left even more difficult …

      I don’t agree.

      If anything, he’s provided supporters of the free market and individual rights with an excellent example of the compatibility of violence and socialism.

      Report This Comment

  3. How could anyone have a personal relationship with god or jesus, if he or it doesn’t exist? That would mean no one is a Christian, i.e., no Christian is a Christian. To assert that one must have such a relationship, when no one can have such a relationship, is a problem. Whereas ABB attacked “cultural Marxists,” it is obvious, that he is identifying himself as a “cultural Christian.” Even the recent atheist popularizers and many others so identify. The idea that you need a “personal” relationship is from a theologian named Oprah of Chicago.

    Report This Comment

    • Greetings Lorenz,

      How could anyone have a personal relationship with god or jesus, if he or it doesn’t exist?

      A belief in the existence of God and Jesus is a pre-condition of being a Christian.

      Breivik does not have such a belief.

      From my studies of Christianity over the last couple of years I understand that Christianity differs from Islam (and other religions) in its belief that it is possible to have a “personal relationship” with God and Jesus. Indeed, one based on love and friendship.

      This is not a recent or modern idea.

      Rather, it seems to be at the heart of Christianity and one of its distinguishing features.

      There are many passages in the Bible supporting and promoting this view. And it is further backed up by extensive Exegesis. It is not a controversial or fringe viewpoint.

      Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

      Please clarify.

      Report This Comment

  4. just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean his views are not Christian or pro-free market. because they in fact are. His brand of extremism has been a feature of both camps for a long, long time. And it’s only in this right-wing climate can he feel his murderous actions could be received well by the world. The biggest difference, maybe the only difference, between this killer and neo-con politicians generally is picked up a gun and shot ppl.

    Report This Comment

  5. Betty, his own words show he’s not a Christian and he’s not a free marketer.

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2017 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog