Explosion Norway

[Ed Jewett]

Israel Shamir's analysis of Breivik's ideas:
The massacre was essentially a publicity stunt
Friday 22 Massacre
By Israel Shamir

When the tears will dry and the cries fell silent we'll recognise the cinematic quality of Utoya Massacre being drawn from trashy horror movies. In the Friday 13 Screams at Elm Street, we saw many times a serial killer stalking a peaceful summer camp and murdering innocent youths. Friday 22 killer translated the celluloid to life completing mutual penetration of art and reality, of gory movies, of shooting arcade games, of unmanned drone attacks in far-away lands and finally this long shoot-out on the fjord island.

Shooting people who can't shoot back is the ultimate vileness of mass killers, of executioners, and of NATO soldiers. For two hours the killer safely, professionally, confidently, coolly stalked the unarmed youths killing them one by one like sitting ducks; for one hundred days the killer's classmates in the air force safely, professionally, confidently, coolly stalked unarmed Libyans. Breivik hated Muslims, hated Socialists, probably hated Qaddafi, a Muslim Socialist, but his deed better than a thousand Qaddafi-dispatched terrorists should remind the people of Europe that wars abroad will bring war home, too. There are too many licences to kill being produced.

Why did he do it? We can answer the question: the massacre was essentially a publicity stunt for the killer's opus magnum, 1500 pages of compendium "2083". This is not a great achievement of human spirit, rather a copy-paste hotchpotch of Neocon writings on Islam and violent anticommunism. However, it deserves our study just because so many people were killed in order to make us read it. If this Breiwick was a Herostratus, let us see why he burned down the temple of so many lives. Moreover, we should see where he was wrong.

2083 reveals a new vicious political virus designed in genetic engineering labs of the Neocon think-tanks. For many years it was thought that a Nazi should hate Jews and befriend Muslims, because this was the case with Hitler's Nazism. A Nazi was not supposed to hate Commies because Communism was a similar totalitarian ideology according to Karl Popper and George Bush. A Neo-Nazi should love Adolf Hitler and upheld racism.

Long labour of Jewish ideologists connected to Neocons succeeded to reverse the attitudes. Today we have a whole string of parties and movements which connect far-right ideas with sympathy to Jews, tolerance of gays, hate of Islam. The writer of 2083, too, is pro-Jews, pro-gays, violently anti-Muslim and anti-Communist. He is nearest to Pim Fortuyn, the assassinated Dutch far-right Judeophile gay politician. He marched with EDL, a British strongly pro-Jewish anti-Muslim militancy.

Breivik's 2083 is heavily influenced by far-right Neocon Jewish writing. As is often the case with copy-paste compilations, it is difficult to fully separate words of the compiler and those of compiled authors. If it ever will be published, probably copyright of David Horowitz and Bat Yeor, Daniel Pipes and Andrew Bostom should embellish its page three. These writers inspired him to commit his mass murder.

Just a few hours before the attack, Gilad Atzmon wrote, Joseph Klein published in the FrontPage magazine an article entitled "The Quislings of Norway," (here) with additional incitement to murder. Klein wrote: "The infamous Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, must be applauding in his grave… Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel."

These are fighting words, and Breitvik heeded them while loading his guns. 2083 proves these sources. Quotes from Frontpage of David Horowitz and its authors take hundreds of pages. Bernard Lewis has a place of honour. The notorious Bat Yeor, an Egyptian Jewish woman living in Switzerland, who coined the term "Eurabia" (an alleged conspiracy to subjugate Europe to Arabs) and did much to promote fear of Islam, corresponded with the killer, and she "kindly" advised him and sent him her unpublished texts. She is the only person named in his Declaration of European Independence, and her advice the newly independent Europeans should follow, according to Bat Yeor.

Robert Spenser, a sidekick of David Horowitz of Jihad Watch is another great love of the killer, and so is an American Zionist, Andrew G. Bostom, self-proclaimed expert on "Islamic anti-Semitism". Daniel Pipes is presented with his thesis that "The Palestinian phenomenon was created with the intention to justify Jihad". Melanie Phillips, the British far-right Zionist and a friend of the BNP leader, and other pro-fascist Islam-haters are also present. (Funnily, these guys repeatedly condemned me for my "anti-Semitism")

Politically, the killer's sympathies lie with "the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe." Economically, he preferred Milton Friedman, disliked taxes, was against welfare system.

He hated Palestinians, and speaks of "Palestinian terrorist jihad". Like every good Zionist he ranted: "Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them… he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz." Among the first things the independent Europeans should do is to stop any assistance to the Palestinians.

For Breivik, like for his Jewish teachers, Adolf Hitler is ultimate evil. He accepted and upheld antiracism, at least for tactical reasons. His dislike of multiculturalism is culture, nor race-based. He was not a racist: he killed blue-eyed Norwegians as well as their brown guests. He even hated David Duke for being anti-Jewish. His hatred to Islam is not limited to borders of Norway, or Europe like Neocons, he hated Muslims wherever they are to be found.

He spends many pages on describing evils of Turkey including massacres of Armenians, Greeks and Kurds. There is a long chapter on modern history of Lebanon, where curiously Israeli wars are missing, and the troubles of the country are presented via Christian/Muslim division. His favourite historical hero is Vlad the Impaler, Romanian prince better known as Count Dracula.

His logic is primitive and faulty: "If all ethnical groups and all cultures are equal, why is it black Africans, Afro-Caribbean blacks, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans want to abandon their own lands en masse to live in the lands of the West?"

A simple explanation, "because the West constantly robbed and robs their countries" does not occur to Breivik.

He asks: "if we're all truly equal, why does the rest of the world want to live the Western lifestyle, a lifestyle created in the main by white people? Just why exactly, do they want to be part of capitalism, run businesses, work for the white man's industries, claim the white man's welfare and buy and use goods created by the creativity and ingenuity of Western - white - people?"

The correct answer: "no, they do not. But they are bombed or besieged if they want to follow their own way of life, like in socialist Cuba, North Korea or Libya".

Breivik can't be characterised a Christian fundamentalist, not even as a Christian nor Christian Zionist. His feelings towards Christianity are lukewarm at the best. He can't even decide whether he is a Christian, he is still "struggling with this myself. Some of the criticism of Christianity…is legitimate." As Jewish activists, he approves of "the Second Vatican Council from the 1960s …for reaching out to Jews", which is usually detested by the conservative right.

Breivik is livid against Muslim immigration though his arguments are valid for immigration in general, he always stresses "Muslim" element. But he does not call upon his country to stop tormenting Muslim states, though this is the main reason for Muslim immigration.

However, the immigration dispute is practically over in Europe. Understanding that immigration carries huge social costs penetrated into all strata of European society. Immigration presents a big problem to Europe on the background of low native birthrate. It is universally disliked, but by the wealthy people of privilege. If years ago immigration could be seen as a magic wand saving citizens from boring chores, something similar to slaves of ancient Greece or to machines, people do not see it this way anymore, as immigrants become enfranchised though not integrated. They certainly cause more unemployment and drop of salaries, if they choose to work; otherwise, they overload welfare budgets. Perhaps rather late, but now this debate is over in Europe. Today, a Norwegian does not have to shoot one's fellow citizens in order to express disagreement with immigration: this became a commonplace.

A Counterpunch writer Vijay Prashad wrote: "the [killed] Labour youth had among them children of migrants from Sri Lanka and North Africa. Their Norway was not Breivik's Norway." Well, that is why, probably, Breivik did not like them: he did not want their Norway to displace his Norway. Prashad condemned European conservatives who "cannot fathom that human beings are able to live convivial lives with those who are different" but history of Sri Lanka is not the best recommendation for peaceful conviviality. If however people of Sri Lanka want "to live convivial lives with those who are different", they will have to practice that at home, not in Norway. Prashad may call Merkel and Sarkozy "Nazis" for refusing to let in more immigration, but the Utoya Massacre did sent a strong signal that many people feel bad about immigration and want it stopped.

Actually, immigration into Norway slowed down to a trickle. The government of Norway like many West European governments made immigration almost impossible. In a famous case, a young girl from Caucasus lived for some ten years in Norway, completed her university studies, wrote a novel in Norwegian and still was deported as illegal alien. Multiculturalism is a slogan of yesterday, so Breivik is as outdated as Prashad.
(to be continued)

The Friday 22 Massacre
Part Two. Breivik the Anti-communist
By Israel Shamir
An odd feature of the mass murderer Breivik's worldview is his extraordinary anticommunism. As an ideology, anticommunism is dead at least since 1991, but probably even earlier. Today, it can mobilise maybe some old-timers in Washington DC, maybe not even them.
While it is a given that the USSR had lost the cold war and was broken up, Breivik writes:
"The US but especially W. Europe lost the cold war due to the fact that we didn't persecute the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the economical aspects but the cultural as well internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme egalitarianism, anti-elitism, anti-nationalism) we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media (see the beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist Leninists) were allowed to indoctrinate the 68 generation, those who run things today."
Breivik's compendium arrives to unexpected conclusion that both EU and US are now "socialist" or even "communist" states, "EUSSR and USSR" organised in accordance with Marx's teachings. I did not know that Karl Marx envisaged a society with hundreds of billionaires and millions of paupers. One should be mad to describe the US and EU as "communist dictatorships" these societies are extremely unequal, workers are on the bottom, while super-wealthy have such an ostentatious lifestyle that was unheard of even in Medici's Florence.
The reason for such insane conclusion is that Breivik chooses the words to mean what he wants, as Lewis Carroll would say. For him, Marxism-Leninism is not the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union and China, but the neo-Marxist western ideology of Fromm and Adorno, Marcuse and Lukacs. With all respect, the Cold War was NOT a war with them, but a war against the USSR and its allies, a war with its geopolitical as well as ideological components. Western neo-Marxists were rather allies of the Capitalist West in this war, and their contribution to the fall of the Eastern Citadel of Communism was enormous as they successfully undermined the Russian elites' belief in their own ideology. The Western Marxists called their Eastern brethren "Stalinists", and they built up on the short-sighted Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin in 1956.
Breivik stresses communist origins of the Frankfurt school founders, of Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukács but the neocons, too, were red-diaper babies or even active Trots before switching sides. Gramsci indeed dreamed of cultural hegemony as the means of arriving to socialism. He thought that a new "Communist man" might be created before any political revolution. However, Gramsci was mistaken. This theory of Gramsci was used to preach non-revolutionary way, avoiding violent takeover of banks and factories. The idea was played up by the Euro-Communists, and after collapse of the Soviet Union disappeared with the Euro-Communist parties.
Lenin was right, and Gramsci was wrong: you have to take away from the capitalists both their chequebooks and their factories, their weapons and their newspapers, their parliament and their government, otherwise they will turn every agenda of yours into their benefit. A communist can agree with critique of the Frankfurt school, but one has to be a lunatic to believe that they were the enemies of the West in the Cold War.
The western neo-Marxists behaved like a proverbial man who searched for a lost coin under the lamppost. Though he lost the coin elsewhere, it was more light under the lamppost. They did not know how to interact with workers, and preferred to work with minorities, students, feminists. It was easier, but led nowhere, as we see now. The workers of Spain and Greece were rising last month, but the neo-Marxists made themselves invisible. They did not lead real popular revolt, as they were used to toy revolutions in the field of semantics.
The Frankfurt school leaders and their companions gave up on the revolution, gave up on socialism, gave up on the workers, and instead, preferred to work "so no future Holocaust would be possible". Kevin McDonald from California State University wrote that they choose to follow their Jewish agenda rather than the Communist one. Breivik did not read McDonald the Terrible, or at least never referred to him, being a good pupil of Jewish pundits. KMD's explanation was forbidden to him. He just intoned that what these men did IS communism.
The reader may be reminded that it is not. We did not move even one step closer to communism by promoting gay marriages and multiculturalism. Fight against Christianity and family does not help, either. All these steps were appropriated and used by Capital and against workers. Actually, the objectives of socialist revolution and "no more Holocausts at any cost" are mutually exclusive. For the first objective, we need brave and daring men, for the second, the men should be unmanned, for men are unpredictable.
A proof that Breivik speaks nonsense (even in his own terms) can be found in his compendium, where he ranges the European states according to their acceptance of the political correctness and other elements of what he calls "cultural Marxism". Not surprisingly, Russia and other countries of the Communist block are the freest from this dogma, while Germany, Sweden and Norway are the most subservient.
Indeed, destructive western neo-Marxist theories never were popular in the East, where capitalism was dismantled in the real sense and there was no need for the make-believe pseudo-communist ideology on top of the capitalist economy.
As for the West, 1968 was not, as Breivik says, a V-day for Marxism, but the beginning of turn to the Iron Heel. Our freedoms peaked just after the long-gone year of 1968. 1968 was a turning point in America. In 1968, the richest Americans contributed 90% of their income to the state, while now they pay less than 30%. Never mind that they do not pay even that by the use of tax shelters, funds and other tricks. It was in 1968 that the American worker's minimum pay peaked in real terms. Looking back, 1968 was the moment in history when mankind was nearest to the stars.
Children of the defeated '68 revolution, we were free to love, smoke, think and act. We could travel and fly without being stripped at the airport, and our booze was not confiscated. We could make love and smoke in cafes. Since then, it was downhill all the way: smoke was banned, free thought was incarcerated by Political Correctness, and political action has been reduced to joining a Facebook group.
In the US, as Noam Chomsky told me, the U-turn coincided with the teachers' strike in New York which reminded the Jews that their narrow interests are not necessarily best served by the progressive and revolutionary tactics. Accordingly, the revolutionary ideologists of '68 acquiesced in pacifying the masses and the chances for a new holocaust or even loss of influence were indeed minimised.
For Breivik with his Jewish mentors such understanding was impossible. He preferred to call for a new crusade against Marxists.