Now begins the last installment of my look at 2083. If you’re just now joining the discussion, this is the fourth in the series. You can click these links and go straight to Part One, Part Two and Part Three.
Throughout the previous three looks at Anders Behring Breivik and Fjordman, I did my best to remain on topic with the text only. I still will derive most of Part Four from the manifesto text, but I will also be using information from the news and other sources as I discuss what I think this text reveals about Breivik. If one reads the text closely, Breivik reveals a lot of answers to questions that are troubling people. I also think the text reveals a lot about Breivik’s motives in a way that gives lie to the idea that stopping Islamic immigration and ending what he refers to as cultural Marxism were his only goals.
In Part Three I mostly discussed the things that Breivik planned and the things he actually did. Because of the level of plagiarism that Breivik engages in throughout the manifesto, it is hard to look at his writing and know if the words are indeed his, but there are patterns that emerge, times when it seems like writing flows and when it seems like he is parroting ideology from others in an awkward manner. When he writes from a place of experience or a place of emotion, it flows smoother and simply feels more real. So I tell myself that there are times I know I am reading Breivik’s actual thoughts, as well as text that is not plagiarized.
I need to explain that I am looking at his manifesto the way I read any text. I am looking at the whole of the document – how it is arranged, how the writing appears, what Breivik considers important, what he does not. There is truth in this manifesto of lies. You know how it is when a seasoned poker player can judge the hands of the other players at the table? It is because the other players, even as they try to present a flat demeanor, have what are called “tells.” A finger twitches, eyes dart to the left, someone unconsciously clears his throat. And the experienced poker player knows. Breivik’s manifesto is littered with tells.
While I hope I am not sounding too arrogant, I am a reasonably good “poker player.” I’m no expert on literary construction. But I fancy that because of my time in the trenches of odd books, strange books, bizarre books, and the people who naturally accompany such books, I have a pretty good grounding in the unusual mind. I also had some excellent teachers and professors in my day who instilled in me a habit of engaging with words in a manner that, at times, makes reading very involved for me. So I fancy that I enter into Part Four with some skills for analyzing text.
But at the same time, I will be engaging in psychological analysis of Breivik that should likely be taken with a grain of salt. In a way, psychoanalyzing him will be no different than analyzing other literary characters because in its way, this manifesto is as much a piece of fiction as any novel. I don’t need a psychological degree in order to discuss the mental state of Emma Bovary, Gregor Samsa, or Catherine Earnshaw. But if I acknowledge that I am analyzing the text in the same way that I would a fictional novel, hopefully that will make it clear that this is just speculation. Once the professional psychological reports come back, I have no doubt large chunks of this entry will be proven completely off-base. As you read this, please keep in mind I am doing my best to discuss Breivik in relation to what I think his manifesto tells me about him, with some news articles to bolster the opinions I posit. I could be very wrong.
And all that having been said, I think I’m right on more than I am wrong. I wouldn’t have written all this out if I didn’t have some belief I was right.
So let’s look at the insight the manifesto text gives us into the mind of Breivik. Let’s look at how his text arrangement and emphasis show his priorities. Let’s talk about what some of his plagiarism really means. Let’s look at how so much of what he writes contradicts itself. Let’s see if some of the initial media responses to him are borne out in his manifesto. Let’s see if we can pin down the mind of a killer via the words that meant so much to him.When I began reading this manifesto, nothing in it seemed right, above and beyond the obvious. I mean, the manifesto left behind by this particular mass murderer is likely not going to be a source of that which makes a whole lot of sense to those who are not bigots, misogynists, and narcissists. But even within the paradigm of knowing that Breivik was a mass murderer who likely had delusional thoughts, there was much that was utterly discordant in this manifesto. Things that when looked at make it clear that Breivik presented information that was contradictory. His motives for killing 77 people, on an overt level seem clear – he is an Islamophobe and anti-Marxist who was encouraged to kill because of his hate, influenced at times by the hate of others. But there is more to the rampage he went on than just religious, right-wing bigotry. (And I cannot emphasize this enough – just because I think there are other motives at play with Breivik, that does not mean the crystal clear motives of hatred of Marxism and Islamophobia are lessened. They are definitely motives and I do not wish to suggest that any one of my suggestions replace them as his stated motives behind the massacre.)
Breivik’s sense of loss about the destruction of his family
In his manifesto, Breivik goes into depth about his loathing of Islamic immigration, reproducing article after article that showed his bigoted notions, as well as occasionally writing out some beliefs of his own. He begins his manifesto with what ostensibly is an example of a dystopia caused by cultural Marxism, and the implication that Muslim immigration has created crime. On its surface, he begins his manifesto by honoring the silly, bigoted, repressive and regressive ideas of Diana West, who would like nothing so much as to force society to move back 60 years into the past when women had fewer choices, when minorities knew their places and when the white, middle class society was the arbiter of all that is proper and decent. But there is more to it than that, I think.
In Breivik’s introduction to cultural Marxism, the social disease he thinks ushered in Islamic immigration, indeed on the second page of the real material in the manifesto, he is expressing a deep longing for a time in the past he thinks is a paradise lost. Of course, as you look at these passages, they will probably strike you as being ridiculous, overblown and hopeless in their advocacy of a time that didn’t exist except for a select few of upper-middle class families in the West. But pay attention to the ideas he is espousing.
From page 12, Breivik begins:
Most Europeans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. Public schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things like talking in class and running in the halls. Most men treated women like ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities through volunteer work. Children grew up in two–parent households, and the mother was there to meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the whole family could enjoy.
Of course, this isn’t how life was for most Europeans in the 1950s and I would wager there are a fair number of Norwegians who do not remember the 1950s so fondly, as a time when Mom was waiting after school for little Timmy and parents never divorced and ladies did volunteer work. It’s interesting to note that Breivik thinks that the world was an episode of Leave it to Beaver until cultural Marxism robbed us all of a place where no moms worked and the worst afflictions of school children were sass and tardiness.
This is the next full paragraph, also from page 12:
If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in the 2000s, he would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would be in immediate danger ofgetting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he shouldn’t go into certain parts of the city, thathis car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic security system.
It’s hard to see that most men in Northern Europe live in a state of constant fear, and I am pretty sure there were bad sides of town where good people did not dare to venture even in the 1950s, but I reproduce this section mostly because it shows that Breivik is possibly a man who lived in constant terror (or he really absorbed the less-than-stellar thinking of Diana West and engages in her hyperbole and unfounded statements), but also because it helps segue neatly into the next paragraph, wherein the real strangeness begins.
If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When the children came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go through a metal detector to get in the building, had been given some funny white powder by another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.
Are there many schools in Norway that require metal detectors? Some in America require them but I don’t yet see metal detectors as being as common as Breivik seems to think. Who knows about funny white powder? Generally one does not see a lot of cocaine or powdered heroin freely given about to the new kids in public schools. And as for homosexuality being normal and good? Who knows. Clearly Breivik thinks he went to school in a system that is reminiscent of the set of the television show The Wire and a continual re-reading of Heather Has Two Mommies. Of course, he is presenting a very jaundiced look at the modern school experience, a very hysterical and frightened look that isn’t really borne out by his own experiences. This is pure Diana West here, this belief that the entire world is an open cesspit because of multiculturalism.
But here’s where it starts to get very interesting. Still on page 12:
In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference to the “little lady,” and say he was happy to see the firm employing some coloured folks in important positions. Any of those acts would earn a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired.
Breivik, like many other privileged white men who feel sorely aggrieved because they cannot shout epithets to women and people of color with cultural impunity, seems to think that not being able to refer to “coloured folks” is a great burden the modern man must carry. More to the point, I don’t know of any company that would fire a man for referring to a woman as “the little lady.” All extremist examples yet again but mostly comical if looked at in depth. And thank heavens no one can smoke anymore in the office place – again, the examples he uses to paint a picture of how terrible the modern world is are so ridiculous. Oh, how terrible the world is when white men cannot smoke at the office. Breivik’s view of the world sounds like he is worshiping Don Draper from Mad Men: a world of white, upper middle-class men. Note he did not discuss the words a man who worked on the docks would use. Nor the words of a garbage collector, of a butcher or a farmer. Just the man who sits at a desk in a suit, smoking.
Next paragraph, still on page 12:
When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people stared, and mocked.
This is pure Diana West, with her insistence that modern dress is somehow indicative of a decline in morality and traditional ethics. “The wife” would be mocked because it would look like she was a character in a television show. People changing the way they dress is not an indicator of how terrible a society is. “The wife” would be just as derided if she went into town dressed in traditional Norwegian dress. And again, only the upper middle class wife dressed in a hat, suit and gloves to go into town, presumably to run errands and do the grocery shopping. Not in Norway, not in America. That sanitized view we have of how people looked and behaved, derived from movies and television, does not portray the mass of people from the 1950s.
We end with this, also from page 12:
And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy, blank-fronted “Adults Only” kiosk had gotten on their set.
Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would be of a nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace, moving in less than a half a century from the greatest countries on earth to Third World nations, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.
Why did it happen?
By this point, we know that the answer to that rhetorical question is cultural Marxism and Islamic immigration. And there is no need to further dissect the whitebread alarmist nature of Breivik’s prose. Most of us don’t turn on the TV and find porn, and I think since the Industrial Revolution anyone who goes 60 years into the future would find the future strange and unsettling. But I think this beginning is mostly important because of the implications of it simply being the first thing Breivik writes about.
It is in the beginning of the section of cultural Marxism, and I think on one level that it is folly to discuss much about the order of this manifesto. It is a mess in terms of logical lay-out. But at the same time, this is the document Breivik left behind to influence people, to try to bring people around to his way of thinking. There are any number of ways he could have started the meat of his manifesto. He could have started by enumerating what he perceives as Muslim atrocities committed in Europe. That would be logical, as he committed the murders ostensibly with the goal of interrupting cultural Marxism recruitment because the cultural Marxists are the ones he blames for allowing Muslim immigration. He could have started off detailing why Muslim immigration is bad. He could have started off by explaining exactly what cultural Marxism is. He could have started off this manifesto in any number of ways.
So I think it is worth looking at his beginning and see what it represents. First of all, obviously he buys into the pearl-clutching ideas of Diana West that modernity is degenerate, despicable, violent and pornographic and that the 1950s were the halcyon days of innocence, happiness and decency. But he also discusses exclusively how the terrors of cultural Marxism play themselves out on the traditional family unit of a man, wife and children. Not the toll cultural Marxism has taken on society at large, but rather a close focus on the microcosm, the family that can no longer exist in the current atmosphere. And he placed this part first because it is the part that means the most to him, even above and beyond the Islamification of Europe.
I assert this is because Breivik is bitterly angry about his childhood. I know, I know, this is simplistic armchair psychology at its worst. It’s the first thing that comes up when discussing a killer – he must have had a bad childhood. But this idea is supported by other things he says throughout his manifesto, and that this discussion of an upper middle-class, white family that is horrified by the present and cannot live there with anything approaching peace, happiness and safety is the first real writing in the manifesto indicates it was in the forefront of Breivik’s mind as he wrote.
Breivik experienced a sense of loss about his childhood. His parents divorced when he was one-year-old. Both parents remarried and both subsequently divorced again. In his manifesto, he discusses how he felt he was feminized because he was raised by his mother, and this point will come up later when I discuss Breivik’s misogyny, but he makes it clear he would not feel so victimized by the world had he been raised by or with his father. This may not seem like the strongest of ideas on my part but as you read, you will see even more proof that shows that Breivik appears to be reacting to the destruction of what he wanted in a family. Breivik literally begins his manifesto bemoaning the lost family of the 1950s. In a novel, this would be a large symbol, leading off with the lost, doomed family of the past. Given Breivik’s opinions about the way he was raised, I think the opening of this manifesto is significant. At times I wonder if he was trying to destroy the futures of kids he saw as happier than him. In his eyes, if his family was destroyed, then other families needed to be destroyed, too. I genuinely feel as if he was trying to kill a generation that had far more happiness than he thinks he got to experience as a child.
On their face, the passages about the Knights Templar are ridiculous. The notion that Breivik is a part of a resurrection of a long defunct order of Crusaders set on releasing Europe from the grasp of Islam is laughable. It pains me that anyone believes it because Breivik had contact online with people involved in bigoted and racist groups. Having spoken to Paul May, attending a boot camp in Belarus and culling e-mails from a Facebook group do not an actual movement make. So given that I know the revived Knights Templar is not real, why did he create such an elaborate back story for his rampage?
Part of it comes from the notion that he was engaging in a sort of delusional game, a fantasy role-playing game, a topic I discussed ad nauseum in Part Three. Part of it is because Breivik wanted to instill that he wasn’t acting alone, that he was a single-cell in a larger organization. But it was also because, in my decidedly non-professional opinion, Breivik has some traits one associates with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has a need to appear as that which he is not – brave, chivalrous, and an important member of a larger group, a group that is destined by God to return Europe to its lost glory.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder isn’t just about being self-impressed. One is tempted to look at the pictures of himself he included in his manifesto, the ones released to the press of him in make-up and posing with a turned-up collar, and the ones of him in uniforms, and think, “Oh yeah, this guy’s a narcissist.” Add to it that Breivik is still carefully maintaining a specific image behind bars as he refuses to permit a mug shot and only appears in public in that damned red Lacoste sweater, and it seems like it’s an easy enough assumption to make.
But NPD goes beyond just vanity or excessive concern about one’s appearance. Of course, it will take a good evaluation from a psychiatrist to explain with any accuracy or believability whether or not Breivik suffers from NPD, but he certainly has some of the classic traits of the disorder.
One trait is excessive belief of self-importance. Breivik’s manifesto insists that he was selected to represent Norway in an international meeting with Knights Templar representatives, meaning of all the people in Norway, he was the most important person to represent his nation in a chivalrous military group. Out of all the men and women in Norway with classical educations and military experience, this man who never graduated from college and was exempted from Norway’s compulsory military service (and this also brings to mind the idea that perhaps the best reason to shoot kids was because they had not yet undergone their compulsory military training and would have been easier targets), was the best candidate. Breivik also, in his diary, gives several examples of how he thinks others admire his status. Take this from page 1462, emphasis mine:
After I had scraped out the yellow PA crystals and the brown DDNP crystals putting them in plastic boxes and placing them in the cold cellar I went to do some shopping in the northern town. There is a festival and there was a lot of things happening, a faire, various food stands, concerts etc. Since this town has a limited variety of fast food I decided to drive down to the southern town, eat and pick up some Chinese takeaway. There was a relatively hot girl on the restaurant today checking me out. Refined individuals like myself is a rare commodity here so I notice I do get a lot of attention in both the southern and the northern town. It’s the way I dress and look. There are mostly unrefined/un-cultivated people living here. I wear mostly the best pieces from my former life, which consists of very expensive brand clothing, LaCoste sweaters, piques etc. People can see from a mile away that I’m not from around here.
Again with the Lacoste. I wonder if the brand is going to take a hit the way Bruno Magli did after his shoes were associated excessively with the OJ Simpson murders. Note in the beginning of this paragraph he has been at work making his bomb but so convinced is he of his superior looks and refined tastes and how the villagers admire him, he can’t bring himself to keep a low profile as he plans his mass murder spree. In certain respects, he reminds me of the spree killer and murderer of Gianni Versace, Andrew Cunanan. I find that very interesting, his sense that the world is always looking at him admiringly.
Another trait of NPD is the need to exaggerate or lie about one’s accomplishments. Breivik stated that he had become a millionaire in his 20s, a claim that has since been completely debunked. After the horrific events of 7/22, the website document.no posted a collection of all the comments Breivik had left on the site. His interactions on the site are what appear to be a vainglorious attempt to promote his own image as a man who could help the site with a publishing venture (and forgive me if I am not specific enough because Google Translate gives me the big picture but sometimes smaller details get lost in the translation). Of course, we know now Breivik had no ties to any publishing company or any pull in the magazine industry. He was posturing to inflate the perception of how he hoped others would perceive him. Almost comically he chides the site for not taking his recommendations to heart, because failing to do as he suggested means the site will never achieve the success they could have had if they had just followed his advice.
People with NPD also have a tendency to run roughshod over others as they set out to achieve their goals. Other than shooting those children, I can imagine nothing more callous than the way Breivik discusses his family in this manifesto. I will not reproduce names because his family has suffered enough, but he took special glee offering up their lives in a very sanctimonious way. He trashes his sister, condemning her for living a life spent pursuing money. She evidently, along with her husband and children, lives on $150K a year, a relatively modest middle-class income for the place where she lives. But taking her to task over her greed in comparison to his own sacrifice was not enough – he took it one horrible step further. From page 1171:
My half sister, Xxxxxxxx was infected by chlamydia after having more than 40 sexual partners (more than 15 Chippendales’ strippers who are known to be bearers of various diseases). Her chlamydia went untreated and she became one of several million US/European women who were suffering from PID, Pelvic inflammatory disease caused by untreated gonorrhea and chlamydia which leads to infertility. As she lives in the US, costs relating to this were not covered by the state. She and her husband spent 40 000-50 000 USD on two IVF treatments (in vitriol fertilisation) a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the womb. She was lucky compared to many as these treatments may cost upwards of 100 000 USD. Furthermore, as far as I know, due to her condition as a result of the untreated disease, she needed a caesarean section for both childbirths. The last c-section almost killed her due to complications and she needed blood transfusion of more than 5 litres of blood in total. It is unknown if her two children suffered from pneumonia and conjunctivitis and other problems in infants born with chlamydia transmitted from my sister during childbirth.
And in case you were wondering, this is filled with the “tells” of lying. How on earth would this man know his sisters’ sexual history to this detail. Perhaps his family is extraordinarily open about such things. Probably not. The Chippendales dancers bit is a “tell” that he is likely lying. It beggars belief that his sister slept with so many strippers, and it is not really a proven social fact that male strippers carry disease. I also find it interesting that he had no idea if the babies she was able to have were actually sick as a result of being born with chlamydia. Funny he doesn’t know such an important fact about the babies but knows his sister slept with 40 men. He made all of this up to aggrandize himself in comparison.
Why did he see fit to bring this up at all? Also from page 1171:
Under normal circumstances I would never reveal intimate details about my friends and my family’s personal lives due to societal taboos and shame, confidentiality issues and loyalty. However, how are we supposed to have a chance at changing our societies when we refuse to reveal the negative impacts surrounding the disintegrating moral?
How magnanimous of him, to offer his sister up as evidence of the “disintegrating moral.” Funny he didn’t discuss his own sexual details, especially the ones about using prostitutes as prepared for his rampage. One presumes he had no need to humiliate strangers – only those close to him. He goes on to discuss how some of his friends have diseases, how his mother has herpes and how she got it from his stepfather, who had over 500 sexual partners in his life. He also insinuates that brain damage from herpes that turned into meningitis left his mother brain damaged, with the intellectual capacity of a child. I could not find anything to bolster his assertions about his mother. He was scoring points off of his friends and family to make himself seem more like a hero, a man who can stand above all this sex and disease.
But don’t worry – he’s not telling us this because he is jealous of other people getting laid, also on page 1172:
I don’t blame them personally and it has absolutely nothing to do with envy. I could easily have chosen the same path if I wanted to, due to my looks, status, resourcefulness and charm.
Feel free to also file this last quote under inflated sense of self-worth.
Another symptom of NPD that Breivik has in spades is a preoccupation or fixation on ideas of success, control and power. The man created an entire delusional manifesto in which he hoped to lead people to believe that he was part of an elite group that was going to change the world. But more importantly, he is now the most talked about man in Norway. He is famous. He is infamous. He now has achieved his twisted idea of success.
There are other characteristics that fit Breivik. One characteristic is that people with NPD often feel as if they are somehow exalted or extraordinary in some manner. Breivik, who writes of how other people noticed his good looks, his good taste, felt he was above the rest of his fellow men. He even created a role for himself in an international but non-existent conspiracy to change the course of history. If he could not justify his self-absorption with reality, then he would create it from whole cloth.
While I could go on about this for a while, I will end this section on NPD with a look at one last characteristic: a demented belief that others should definitely follow his beliefs and instructions. Breivik, in his interactions on document.no, chided people several times for failing to follow his advice, as if the people who ran the site somehow were being derelict or stupid by not immediately engaging in his detailed publication instructions. When I take this manifesto into account, in addition to showing a man who was willing to worry to death every detail, I also see a man who thinks he has all the answers. One of the best examples I will discuss later in this article are his demented, detailed, excruciating instructions for what Europe should do if the birth rates among native Europeans do not improve. The level of attention was stupefying and, more to the point, it was written with an expectation that it would be lauded, perhaps found revolutionary. Either that, or my initial feeling that it was more game manual minutia was on point. In the case of Breivik, I am unsure if you have to pick – there are many motives to choose from.
Like his idol Fjordman, Breivik is no fan of women. It’s pretty safe to say that any man who finds it merry and fitting to trash his mother and sister in such a humiliating fashion is probably not going to be really fond of women in general. Since beginning this four part series, I have received a lot of e-mails from people, and a few of them claim to have irrefutable evidence that Breivik is a homosexual and that, of course, all male homosexuals hate women/their mother/the world. I have no idea where such ideas come from but I do wish they would stop. The logical inverse of this would be that all heterosexuals hate the sex to which they are not attracted. Life is not a Tennessee Williams play and if Breivik is indeed homosexual, I tend to think that should be the very last thing analyzed when looking at why he killed so many people. But people can be misogynists regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation, and Breivik is definitely a misogynist.
A desire to destroy the concept of mother
When I finished the manifesto and began writing about 2083, I was under the impression that the current Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, was Breivik’s intended target and as a result I had a hard time understanding why it was that he decided to kill so many teenagers who were not even on his traitor list. I wondered if perhaps his failure to kill the Prime Minister turned into impotent rage that he took out on the kids on Utøya. When I realized I wanted to read this manifesto, I decided to stop reading the news because what good is my interpretation if my thoughts could be contaminated by blogs, news reports that discussed his state of mind, etc. I really did want to stick to the words in the manifesto alone.
It was clear after Part Three that I was going to have to relent and read some news sources. Helpful comments I received to my entries made that clear. In the context of trying to assassinate Stoltenberg, much of what happened on Utøya seemed odd. But even taking into account that Breivik srtayed from his own dementedly detailed traitor categories and killed teenagers, the events of Utøya make far more sense when I understand who the real target was.
To those who followed the news carefully, the real intended target will be no surprise. Breivik wanted to assassinate former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, a woman called “The Mother of the Nation” in Norway because of the length of time she spent as Prime Minister. And had there not been a traffic accident that delayed him, Breivik may have succeeded as she was on the island that day to give a speech. He only missed her by about an hour.
I know many people are unwilling to engage in armchair psychiatry and I can see the folly in it. But it is tantalizing, isn’t it, the notion of a man wanting to kill “The Mother of the Nation.” A man who demeans his own mother in his manifesto may have some issues with mothers, especially a Socialist mother who led the country. I do not think it is particularly far-fetched to think that Breivik looked at the teenagers on that island, knew when a matriarch in the Socialist movement was coming to speak, and decided to kill the mother and her children. This ties back into the idea of family as well. Breivik was wiping out a sort of Socialist family when he decided to kill “The Mother of the Nation” and the young people whom she had influenced.
But even if you don’t want to jump into the whole notion of a psychological desire to kill a type of mother and her children, it can’t be denied that wanting to assassinate a woman who led three Labor governments in Norway speaks to a certain level of misogyny. He could have planned to kill the current Prime Minister and that would have been as equally if not more attention-worthy, but he wanted to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland, a woman and a leader of the party Breivik thinks pushed the feminist movement and cultural Marxism in order to sell out Europe to the Muslims. Much like Fjordman, his first choice of victim shows how Breivik lays the blame for societal woes on women, and a woman who was the opposite of the woman in his intro, a 1950s, glove-wearing, dinner cooking, stay-at-home-wife and mother, would be an excellent target to drive home his point.
Patriarchy is the only way to save Norway
Just to show I did not cherry pick all of the anti-woman horrors in Breivik’s manifesto and ignored it when he took a middle ground, here’s a quote from page 1177:
I’ll be the first to admit that there are many sensible feminist policies. The goal should obviously not be to reverse ALL feminist policies just for the sake of it. Ignore these sensible feminist policies, and instead focus on the destructive policies.
But this is immediately followed by an assertion that due to cultural Marxism, all of Europe is now a matriarchy, also from page 1177:
The current matriarchy in Western European countries is partly the cause of the symptoms that have become increasingly prevalent. To counter the symptoms it is required to fix the underlying flaws of our systems. One of the primary flaws is the matriarchal supremacy we see in several arenas.
And since he wanted to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland, it is not too far out there to think politics is now a matriarchy. But he specifically names the areas which are now controlled by the matriarchy. One is divorce, and interestingly, he wants to do away with no-fault divorces because he feels it is a legal inconsistency not to punish a person who breaks a contract, and therefore doing away with no-fault divorces will ensure that spouses who did not want divorces will have a moral high ground. There’s a little jab at homosexuals at the end, whom he does not think want traditional marriage, only the “watered-down version” that is prevalent now, but he never comes out and make an assertion, as does Fjordman, that women are responsible for most divorces. It’s a curious paragraph to prove the presence of the matriarchy.
But the next paragraph does show it, and this links back to the idea that bringing back into existence the perfect 1950s family was possibly a motive. He feels that giving child custody to women in divorces must stop. From page 1179:
To truly reverse the decline of the family, the momentum must be carried forward to confront the current destructive matriarchal policies that have institutionalised “broken family” policies. Our current system produces broken families and prevents traditional norms based on discipline. The most direct threat to the family is “divorce on demand”. Sooner or later, if Western Europe is to endure, it must be brought under control. The father/patriarch must be given considerably more influence as this is the only way to ensure the survival of the nuclear family as it will enhance family integrity. The matriarchal supremacy within the modern households must seize to exist
As of now, the mother will always be awarded child custody rights unless she is mentally ill or a drug/alcohol addict. The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default. This will ensure that that divorce rate will be significantly reduced (by up to 50-70%) and will contribute to uphold the nuclear family.
Yes, you read this correctly. He wants to return to the Victorian ideal wherein in the event of a divorce, the man always got the children. Worse, if one takes into account that Breivik wants to end no-fault divorce, this means that even if a man initiates a divorce, he is still going to benefit because he will always get the children. This serves to trap women into bad marriages on pain of losing their children, and one cannot help but remember my idea that part of Breivik’s motives are to reinstate the 1950s family he lost out on. If his mother had known she would lose him in a divorce, would things have been different for Breivik? Actually, he would not have existed as the marriage to his mother was not his father’s first marriage. But really, as self-absorbed as he is, I think he thinks his broken home was the primary home that was broken – that is the one he wants to retroactively restore. And he wants to restore it by eliminating a woman’s right to her children in a divorce.
And the matriarchy seems to have a stranglehold in the realms of abortion and birth control. Here are two quotes, also from page 1179:
Abortion should only be allowed in case of rape, if the mother’s life is in danger, or if the baby has mental or physical disabilities. The liberal zones may be exempt by this rule.
Contraceptive pills and equivalent methods will be severely restricted in conservative territories. The liberal zones may be exempt by this rule.
Fabulous. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will ensure a complete dearth of women in academia, the workplace and in politics better than removing women’s right to control their fertility. Stripping women of the capacity to determine how many children they want is the best way to control women and this is some high level misogyny here because Breivik understands this fact – women who cannot control their family size cannot assert their place in the world. It makes marriage a continual crap-shoot and given the youthful predilection for romantic love, it will ensure generations of women get married and forced out of the decision-making in Norway. I can sense some of the comments and e-mails I will receive, wherein men will say, “Is removing women from the decision-making a bad idea? Women can still influence via the home and how they raise their children. What about the idea that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?” If you pose that question and it is not rhetorical, you need to understand that you are engaging in misogynist thinking because what you are asserting is that women must never be able to assert power directly, but must do so via the male children they produce. You are diminishing women to their reproductive functions – only by ovaries can a woman shape her world. That is misogyny.
This is all also very likely to end poorly in Breivik’s misogynist utopia because he also goes on to ban sex education. I can just see fifteen year old girls all over Europe getting pregnant with no recourse but marriage. He also, as a virtual afterthought, bans quotas and female hiring preferences, as if that will be much of a concern in a place where the women have no choice but to remain single or be pregnant as often as their bodies will permit, like the worn-out women of the Quiverfull movement.
Brave New Norske
But what will happen if women cannot get their reproductive acts together and bring up the population numbers among the native Europeans? What happens if the white women do not breed to Breivik’s satisfaction? From page 1180:
Future national reproduction policies will rely on how we choose to reform women’s rights, media-government-social directives/the Church/drug-alcohol policies/sexualfamily ethics and moral. In order for women to be truly liberated, according to hardcore feminists, she must be free from the pressure of carrying offspring. But that is not really possibly or at least acceptable as humanity would be extinct within a generation.
Ensuring sustainable fertility rates does however not necessarily mean that we have to strip away women their rights as there are alternatives.
We need to increase our fertility rate from the European average (non-Muslim) of 1,5 to 2,1-2,3 (2,1 being a minimum).
This will to a certain degree involve encouraging many 3 child families.
It’s good to know that I am evidently a hard core feminist. I had always thought I was ardent but moderate but us hard core feminists like to control our reproductive rights so I’ll take the label. But if he has banned birth control and abortion, how is it he plans to fix this without completely stripping away women’s rights? Well, he enumerates his previous points of making abortion illegal and birth control hard to obtain and stripping away sex education. He also goes on to discourage women from seeking education because it only means they will want to work jobs, offer tax incentives for being a mother, and limit media so people will not want to have a Sex and the City lifestyle, which he mentions about as often as Fjordman mentions the Vagina Monologues. This he calls the 1950s solution.
But never fear, there is a “feminist/liberal” model and it reads like something out of a science fiction nightmare. Seriously, if you wanted to write a scenario for a zombie apocalypse game wherein the world must be repopulated quickly, you could do worse than Breivik writes in this section. From page 1182:
The following suggestion can only be applied in a highly pragmatical and rational society that isn’t bound by the paralyzing grasp of today’s cultural Marxist non-ethics.
An alternative which would prevent the need to restrict women’s rights and media rights would be to allow the state to play an essential role in national reproduction. This would mean allowing European Federation women to continue their current path toward liberating themselves from the pressure of carrying offspring.
Okay, despite the fact that I knew he thought he was throwing us women a bone by creating a world wherein we can still work, when I read the words “pragmatical and rational” I knew the idea was going to be outrageous and absurd (and in Breivik’s case, completely over-thought and full of strange details). He did not disappoint, from page 1182:
This would involve the creation of a network of surrogacy facilities in low cost countries and basically “outsource breeding”. A gestational surrogate carrier refers to a woman who carries a pregnancy created by the egg and sperm of two other individuals by using IVF.
He goes on to describe what IVF is and how it would work in his society, still on page 1182:
IVF or in vitro fertilisation is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the womb, in vitrio. IVF is traditionally a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman’s ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient’s uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy. The first “test tube baby”, Louise Brown, was born in 1978. IVF can also be used when parents want to have multiple births. The first pregnancy achieved with the use of donor eggs was reported in 1984. By using in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques, eggs are obtained from the ovaries of the donor, fertilised by sperm from the other donor, and the resulting embryo’s are placed into the surrogate’s uterus. If pregnancy is achieved, the resulting child will be genetically related to the two donors but not to the surrogate.
But wait, there’s a rub! Still on page 1182:
Who will care for these children? Career obsessed women who does not prioritise reproduction is not likely to have the will to care for these surrogacy babies either so there would not be enough foster parents.
So… The surrogacy is not to create babies for working women who do not want to pause to give birth? Nope. He goes on, still on page 1182:
The only alternative would be that the state, or state funded institutions take on the role for fostering these children.
He explains how this plan will work. Here’s the overview from page 1182:
This is how the arrangements could work:
A large facility or a so called “boarding home” is created which is divided into 5 separate areas:
– Kindergarden boarding home (age 0-6)
– Primary school boarding home (age 6-12)
– Secondary school boarding home (age 12-16)
– High school boarding home (age 16-19)
– College/university boarding home (age 19-25)
By boarding home, he means orphanage where school is taught.
More detail on pages 1182-1183:
6 babies, 3 boys – 3 girls, are delivered to the boarding home during the first 6 months of the year, 6 more babies, 3 boys – 3 girls, are delivered during the next 6 months. The first 6 are assigned a specific surname, f example Andersson and two full time “parents/guardians”, one male and one female. From now on, these 6 babies are considered brothers and sisters. Together with their two “parents/guardians” they are considered a unique family, and will not be separated for the rest of their lives. These two full time employees (one male, one female) who will act as their parents/guardians will follow them throughout their lives.
This setup will facilitate and encourage close bonding as they will do as many activities as possible together to ensure a stable and warm relationship allowing the development of trust, friendship and “family ties”.
A lot of thoughts ran through my brain reading this. I thought of the clones raised in a boarding school in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. I thought of Oliver Twist. I thought of all those children discovered in Romania when Ceausescu was finally killed, the evil bastard. I thought nothing good ever comes from assuming that all people are noble and will care for all children like they are their own. Breivik himself bitterly resents not being raised with his natural parents. That he wants to inflict this strange idea on children at all speaks of a depravity that I cannot fathom. There is nothing wrong with foster homes. There is nothing wrong with adoption. Some children need to be rescued and some people cannot have children or their hearts are open to children who are not theirs by birth. But this is setting up entire generations of children who are motherless and fatherless, being born by women who will not keep them but will presumably continue serving as an incubator for the state. Breivik’s own father rejected him because of chronic misbehavior in high school and he discusses the 1950s family enough that we can all agree that it plays in his mind somehow. Again, it seems like he wants to destroy untold generations because he never got the family he wanted.
He discusses the plan for all these IVF via surrogate children and the life he has set up for them in the predictable, game manual-like manner that I have come to expect from him and then also predictably it gets worse. If it occurs to you to ask where the European baby factories get their ova and sperm, he explains it, from page 1184:
This option is usually arranged through established egg/sperm donation programs. Existing European programs must be drastically increased to facilitate large-scale programs. Women in IVF programs may forward their excess eggs to other surrogates. One donor should however not donate more than 100 eggs/sperm doses to avoid potential future inbreeding effects. This number may be adjusted based on distribution area. All donors will be compensated financially for their expenses, time, risk, and inconvenience associated with the process.
But what is in it for the surrogates, other than pregnancy after pregnancy until their bodies wear out? Wouldn’t such a life wear thin even for the most Nationalistic woman. If she is healthy enough to be able to bear all these children, wouldn’t she like to have one of her own? Or what if she marries and wants a family of her own? Breivik has the solution on page 1187:
The development of advanced incubator machines/artificial wombs could become an alternative (or even a substitute) to using surrogates in low cost countries. This can be done by investing in and developing highly advanced neonatal intensive-care units (NICU) or by continuing the development of artificial uterus’s (ectogenesis).
Wow. Of course, this is dystopian science fiction, but the subtext is clear: Women are not doing what men like Breivik think they should, which is giving birth as much as possible. In order to assuage the women who want to have educations and careers, a frightening industry of IVF labs and surrogates, schools and orphanages will be set up. For all those women who want to work, women will have to give up their ova and another woman will have to carry babies that the state will raise in order to achieve a birth rate higher than the Muslims. Not only is it creepy and demented and cruel, but it gives the appearance of a false choice – have a family or see your society turn into a bad science fiction movie. False choices are the hallmark of the feminist critic. Women have been damned if we do and damned if we don’t since the beginning of time but never before have I seen the misogynist fallacy of choice played out so terribly.
Of course Breivik’s plagiarism is not a motive to the shootings, but rather, I think his plagiarism shows a lot about his motives, hence including it here.
In a way, the plagiarism is not unexpected. This is a 1518 page manifesto. I can see how a source might not be cited here or there, or an article reproduced without due attention to including the name of the author. But the wholesale plagiarism and reproduction of the works of others is puzzling when I think about Breivik’s nature.
In his own writing, he leaves no stone uncovered. He is thorough and spares no details. Consider his traitor list. Consider the above section about artificial wombs. They were exacting and precise. He tightly controlled his image before the attacks and is controlling it now. He set up his own lab, evidently experimented in various ways to commit mayhem. He controlled his actions, his words and his demeanor to the point that he completely slipped under the radar in front of his family, his friends and even to those who knew of him online. Does this sound like a man who would plagiarize the words of others?
In one respect, yes. I can see it. He is a cypher with little original philosophical thought of his own. But even within that knowledge, it makes little sense that he would do it, that he would spend years organizing and working and then undermine himself by looking intellectually and academically lazy.
I assert that he plagiarized because the sections of this manifesto wherein he cut and pasted Fjordman’s body of work and he plagiarized William Lind and the Unibomber are the parts that mean the least to him. The parts where he is angry at the modern world for making it impossible to be a 1950s family, the parts where he was creating his own bizarre little world with his game-like manual of rules for Breivik’s Europe, are what matter the most. The places where he exerted the most mental and physical energy – creating the world and planning and testing his mayhem, meant the most because those were the parts that resonated with hurt child, narcissistic personality. The passages about Islamification and cultural Marxism, while very important to him, did not require the extensive amount of work he put into his descriptions of how the Knights Templar are going to rebuild Europe and all the details of the fantasy world of his game. Islamophobia and cultural Marxism were someone else’s ideas and as a result, did not glorify Breivik.
Of course, Islamophobia and cultural Marxism are a huge part of why he ran amok but I genuinely think that Breivik lives in a world of his own logic, wherein shooting “The Mother of the Nation” and teenagers was an act meaningful on an emotional level and a political level. The politics are important but the emotional part, the fun part of creating his own world, his reactions to the world that deprived him of what he wanted, were the places where he put in his original thought.
Questions I have received and how the manifesto answers them
I’ve received e-mails from readers and have read others asking questions online and many of the questions, I think, are answered in the manifesto.
Did Breivik act alone?
People will disagree with me on this but I think he acted alone. Not just as a single-cell in a larger, unorganized Knights Templar structure, but utterly alone. He had contact with people, especially via Facebook. By now it is no secret there are Nationalist, racist and bigoted sites all over the Internet, all espousing virulent ideology. Some have even cheered on Breivik’s wholesale murder of children. But I don’t think sharing the same beliefs and having the same moral deficits means he acted in concert with others. I think the shallow connection to Paul Ray will be proven to be even shallower than some fear. Yes, Ray himself has some nefarious activities going on, it would seem, but he can’teven control his contrary nature and keep his profile down low enough to prevent himself from being expelled from a church in Malta two weeks before the murders. It seems unlikely a fiery man who is an exile even in the place where he was exiled would have been able to keep his nose clean well enough to prevent official scrutiny. And Fjordman, had he been a part of this, would not have gone on record cheering it on before he realized his name was all over the manifesto.
But that aside, there is evidence in this manifesto that shows, to me at least, that Breivik was completely alone. From the very beginning, I felt like he did this all on his own with nary a network to support him. Take this from page 5:
I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know. Please do not think that others will take care of it. Sorry to be blunt, but it does not work out that way. If we, the Western European Resistance, fail or become apathetic, then Western Europe will fall, and your freedom and our children’s freedom with it… It is essential and very important that everyone is at least presented with the truth before our systems come crashing down within 2 to 7 decades. So again, I humbly ask you to re-distribute the book to as many patriotic minded individuals as you can. I am 100% certain that the distribution of this compendium to a large portion of European patriots will contribute to ensure our victory in the end. Because within these three books lies the tools required to win the ongoing Western European cultural war.
Why would a man who is a part of an international re-creation of the Knights Templar be reduced to begging those who are reading his manifesto to distribute it to Nationalists? This was sent out initially to Facebook members whose e-mails he had collected, but if even those people had known of what he planned, why would there not be a system in place to disseminate this information. A couple of proxy server e-mails and those who are a part of this cloak and dagger group could have sent this e-mail out to the members of the conspiracy and beyond. But Breivik had to get his word out there on his own, and in fact, killing people was a method of marketing to him. That is not really the mark of a man with the support of any sort of organized group.
I discuss in Part Three how it is that Breivik financed it. He did some job for a year or two, saved money by living with his mother, ramped down his lifestyle (note the mention in one of the above quotes about how he was wearing his designer clothes from his previous life) and committed credit card fraud. He details how he got the weapons, the ammunition, and all the supplies on his own. He describes how he built the bomb on his own. He details how he kept his spirits high working alone. He makes it very clear no one else knew about what he wanted to do. But that’s just what I have found in the manifesto and a few online news sources. I would like to think that if there was a larger group behind Breivik it would be apparent by now but I also think that until the trial, even I with all my conviction cannot say for sure that he was utterly alone. I just think that his need to be admired made him tell us all the details so we would know he indeed did all of this by himself.
Is Breivik a homosexual
I hit on this above, but it largely does not matter. He mentions in the manifesto, even in parts I have quoted, that he dislikes that homosexuality is being shown as normal and he makes little digs at gays, but were we to weigh his negative comments against gays with everything else, it is like splashing a teaspoon of water from a bathtub and calling it a spill. People make remarks about his appearance and vanity but plenty of heterosexual men are very appearance-oriented and vain. He comments on what he considers the feminization of men in cultural Marxism but that is a whole other kettle of fish. He is concerned about that not because he thinks it makes men gay but because he is convinced it makes men weak. So ultimately I do not know if he is gay but it doesn’t matter. All that matters is he is a delusional, strange, weird man who killed children.
Was Breivik a right-wing Christian or a Fundamentalist
I belong to a couple of fundamentalist Christian watch sites, and immediately after 7/22, snippets of the manifesto came out and the parts about essentially ending women’s rights as well as the Dominionist elements of Breivik’s ideas of reclaiming Europe under the banner of the Knights Templar rang a bit too close to some of the bizarre and harmful Dominionist ideas of American groups like the Vision Forum. But as I read this document I never got the feeling that Breivik was a fundamentalist or even that he was engaging in excessive Christianity.
Take, for example, the word “Jesus.” One would expect a 1518 page manifesto written by an American fundamentalist to contain the word so many times that one would need a program to count it. I counted the use in Breivik’s manifesto 62 times, and many of those uses were in Koran-Bible comparisons and many were not in articles that Breivik himself wrote. That in itself is interesting.
But most interesting is the idea that he really does have a William Lind idea of a Christendom, a unified white Europe that has a Christian identity rather than a strict Christian belief. For example, you are Christian first, a Dutchman second in the eyes of Lind, which puts you in automatic opposition to pagans, Jews and Muslims. Breivik has a wider net – he doesn’t mind Jews and pagans and even goes so far as to welcome Odinists into the Knights Templar. I think this quote as to who can be a part of the Knights Templar will explain a lot, and all emphasis is in the originals. From page 1361:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: 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. 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).
This is Christianity as it applies to a European identity, not the sort of individualized relationship I was encouraged to have with Jesus when I was a Southern Baptist. He is not a fundamentalist as we understand the word in the United State. He is not representative of the Tea Party, Christian-infused xenophobes we see in America. He’s got some strange ideas about God and the purpose of a Christian but those who see him as being in the same vein as Pat Robertson, Doug Phillips, or even Fred Phelps need to know he is a completely different brand of Christian hate.
Moreover, Breivik, while he is indeed a Christian, is not a man who communicates with God, though he would like to take strength from God if he can. He talks about this in his diary. From page 1459:
I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. He must ensure that I succeed with my mission and as such; contribute to inspire thousands of other revolutionary conservatives/nationalists; anti-Communists and anti-Islamists throughout the European world.
From page 1344:
I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;
“Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.”
Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die during the operation as I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission. When I initiate (providing I haven’t been apprehended before then), there is a 70% chance that I will complete the first objective, 40% for the second , 20% for the third and less than 5% chance that I will be able to complete the bonus mission. It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would.
So really it seems to me as if most of his beliefs are not the evangelical, fundamentalist beliefs people in American associate with Christians who seek a repressive society for women, seek to oust all non-believers and practice Dominionism. While he mentions Christianity often as a counterpoint to all that he thinks is miserable with Islam, Breivik is not a Bible-thumper as many Americans have come to associate with fundamentalists. But even on a gentler note, as I am not a women who can stand much in the way of religion, Breivik’s ideas also show no resemblance to the ideas of my beloved late grandfather, a Southern Baptist. Breivik really did shape the invocation of religion around the beliefs of Lind and the notion of the Templars as a force for European, Christian identity.
Why did he take those ludicrous pictures
Well, they are ludicrous, I know, and given the e-mails I received, those pictures fuel about 90% of the belief that Breivik is gay. But he took them because he wanted to be in control of his image. He wanted to be perceived as a handsome, stylish man because otherwise he feared the media would use other images that would not reflect as well. A high school picture of Breivik that made the rounds shows him with a decidedly different nose, and while he still is recognizable, that is not what he wanted to be the common image of him. It goes hand in hand with what I consider to be his narcissism that he wanted to micromanage what others saw of him yet had no idea how those pictures might appear to others. The military uniform has received a lot of criticism that a murderer with no military training would don such a uniform. The picture of him holding the gun is chilling. Yet everyone seems fixated on that picture of him with the bifurcated soul patch and his popped collar.
But those pictures were what he wanted. He felt those pictures would help his image. Here’s his rationale from pages 1064-1065:
It is essential for all cultural conservative resistance fighters to understand that we are in the middle of a war of perceptions. Our objective is to portray our enemies in the worst possible light – as cultural Marxist traitors who wishes to sell their own peoples into Muslim slavery. They, on the other hand, have the exact opposite objective. They are doing everything to tell the people that they have no political opposition whatsoever and that the occasional attack is only committed by backwater, brain damaged and inbred freaks. They are effectively “selling” the perception that we are nothing more than a bunch of pedophile and criminal scum of society, who has somehow escaped from the local insane asylum. They ALWAYS illustrate their definition of heroic icons of society using all factors to improve their looks and appeal. And they ALWAYS illustrate the nationalist resistance fighters in the worst possible light, without makeup, in bad lighting, without editing, and often in unfortunate postures. And these often appalling photos correlate with the above description. This is not coincidental but a deliberate aspect of their psychological warfare against us. They deliberately portray us as the anti-thesis of the ideal person so that we achieve a minimum of impact when it comes to appealing to the average European. We must counter this psychological warfare campaign by making it harder for them to use this weapon against us.
So he wants to look good, not like a lunatic, inbred scum when the media tears him apart for killing kids. How did he ensure none of the pre-nose job pics got leaked, or at least not too many? He explains on page 1066:
It is essential that cell commanders and/or cell operatives budget at least a portion of their operational budget to photo sessions and remember to delete all other unfortunate photos from the past. This is to prevent the media/police from getting access to them and exploit them for their own propaganda. The police usually “leak” “retarded looking” photos to the press after raiding the cells apartment after an operation. By removing and deleting all “negative” photos, and by making available the professional, photo shopped photos prior to the operation; we make their job significantly harder.
So he probably scrubbed the Internet of all pictures he thought unfortunate. He then tells those who want to be a part of the Knights Templar how they should plan their photo shoots. From pages 1066-1067, emphasis in original:
– Use professional makeup artists and use make up on both female and male models. Yes, this sounds gay, but looking “attractive” will significantly benefit the impact of our messageas it will act as a force multiplier
– Use professional editing (photoshop) on all digital photos (You can hire a programmer on f example: www.scriptlance.com to photoshop your pictures for less than 50 Euro).
Preparations required before a photo shoot
As a Justiciar Knight you will go into history as one of the most influential individuals of your time. So you need to look your absolute best and ensure that you produce quality marketing material prior to operation.
Prepare for the photo session;
– Take a few hours in a solarium to look fresher.
– Train hard (work out) at least 7 days prior to photo session
– Cut your hair shave
– Visit a male salon if possible and apply light makeup. Yes, I know – this might sound repulsive to big badass warriors like us, but we must look our best for the shoot
– Use your best clothing – you can f example bring 3 different sets of clothing to the shot location – 1. Dress, tie etc. 2. Casual wear 3. Sporty wear 4. Militaristic wear (obviously, you can’t bring your guns or anything indicating that you are a resistance fighter). You should always order the photo session in a foreign country to avoid that the personnel alerts authorities. Always pay in cash and do not sign any receipt with your own name.
End note: Be very careful to have military shots lying around. Be very careful if you decide to use pictures with guns. People who see these photos might alert the authorities. Carefully consider the use of symbols as it might backfire. Cross of the martyrs is fine (St. George) but avoid any symbol associated with Nazism.
And it’s clear he took his own advice because we can see that he had a professional session with outfit changes, manscaping and make-up, as well as heavily photoshopped pictures of himself in the uniforms with the guns.
But yes, he thought this was a good idea, these strange glamor shots of him all over the web.
Was Breivik a Nazi
No, despite his decidedly fascist leanings that come out as one reads his manifesto, Breivik was not a Nazi nor did he have any sympathy for anti-Jewish causes. Rather, he felt that anti-Jewish sentiments caused people to align themselves with Muslims and does not like the pro-Palestinian stance of the Norwegian government. I think some people, when they read he was a rabid anti-Marxist and appalled by the Frankfurt school, jumped to the conclusion that he hated many of those involved because they were Jews. This is not the case. He is decidedly anti-Nazi. Take this from page 1097:
The badge of the Justiciar Knight illustrates a white skull, marked with the symbols of communism, Islam and Nazism
on the forehead, impaled on the cross of the martyrs. The background is black. The badge of the Justiciar Knight
illustrates our patriotic struggle/ opposition against all three primary hate ideologies of our time: Islam,
Multiculturalism (Communism) and Nazism.
There is a picture that goes along with this that was shown on a couple of sites with no explanation that the Swastika was there as an emblem of one of the Knights Templars’ enemies. I think fueled some of the Nazi identification. More from page 1163:
In any case; educate yourself and learn the difference. Today’s conservatives and want to-be Nazis are ignorant when they obsess so much over the Jews. There is no Jewish problem in Western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in Western Europe, whereas 800 000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem. But please learn the difference between a nation-wrecking multiculturalist Jew and a conservative Jew. Don’t make the same mistake that NSDAP did. Never target a Jew because he is a Jew, but rather because he is a category A or B traitor. And don’t forget that the bulk of the category A and B traitors are Christian Europeans. 90% of the category A and B traitors in my own country, Norway, are Nordic, Christian category A and B traitors.
There are many similar quotes in this manifesto. Breivik is not a fan of Nazism nor does he hate Jews. Though he makes a reference to the idea that race mixing is bad, I cannot recall the context and I lack the will to find it. Just rest assured he reserved most of his hate for cultural Marxists, Muslims, women and traitors.
Further muddying the waters, however, has been the reaction of actual Nazis, who claim Breivik was working for the Jews and that the events of 7/22 were a “false flag” operation meant to discredit Nazis and fascists, as well as further achieve the goals of Jews in their struggles with Muslims, especially the nation of Israel.
The conclusions I have reached
I began to read this manifesto because it was just another outre book, another look into a dark human soul, another chance for me to wallow in a strange, delusional mind. It’s not an intellectual trait I am proud of but this tendency of mine is not mine alone – lots of people are drawn to the dark, the strange, the simply odd.
But it became something more than just one of my regular exercises. In my 20s, I went down some interesting roads as I tried to find that which was truth for me and even as I tried on appalling mental hats, my inner ideology never changed. I could never find it in myself to hate people. I loathe religion but that is not the same as loathing a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew. And as an American I could never wrap my mind around racism and Nationalism in a land of immigrants. I just never could make that leap and because of it, I find those who made the leap more fascinating than I should. I think I am searching for an answer to the question of what makes me different from them. And I wonder sometimes why, as manifestly liberal and egalitarian as I am, I seldom take offense to mindsets I find horrifying. I may react and even overreact to ideas I find terrible but I often find myself in a strange mental position of being able to like people whose ideologies I think are terrible and I wish I knew why.
I found this manifesto absorbing in places because I thought I might finally find an answer to many questions about Breivik and those that I have about myself.
So I wrote and wrote and wrote and after my first entry it really did become a wholly different exercise. I met online a man who lost his cousin in Oslo, a woman who was just around the corner from where the bomb went off and is haunted by how close she came to severe injury if not death, and another woman whose daughter’s friend died on the island. Countless other e-mails flowed in, comments were left, and at the end of it, Breivik stopped being a curiosity. I needed answers. Maybe I searched too hard and found strange links that mean something only to me.
But even as I make assertions, I don’t really kid myself. Even after the psychiatrists are done with him I don’t think we will know the real mind of a man like Breivik to any degree so that we can make sense of what happened. Isn’t that why I read these horrible things? To be drawn to the darkness is to want to understand it? Possibly, but while I think reading this manifesto showed the strange contents and revealed some interesting things about Fjordman, I don’t think I really know that much about Breivik. I just know what he said in the manifesto and as I mentioned in Part Three, Breivik is a liar. I can piece all of this together with my knowledge of darkness, all the books I have read, all the psychology books, all the criminology books, all the books on intellectual racism, but all of that implies I had a place of firm ground when I was looking at Breivik’s words. I didn’t. His manifesto is a swamp and even though I engaged in this exercise knowing it was a swamp, I may have sunk into the mire even as I tried to avoid it.
So I have no answers, really. Just my beliefs from reading this manifesto. Hopefully the investigators and mental health workers will help everyone come to some understanding, but I fear that even if we understand Breivik, that means we just understand this one man after the fact. If there is a way to extrapolate this into a detection policy, a means of prevention, I cannot see it. Breivik is a monster and one cannot make policy out of a monster.
I cannot begin to tell you how happy I am to be finished with this for now. This was an oppressive read, and discussing it at times was even more oppressive. And while I like to think there are some answers we can reach about Breivik, if my conclusions are correct and he both acted alone and in terms of the motive mix is sui generis, what good did any of this reading and writing do any of us?
I mean, we know there are entire segments of the modern world who are unhappy, seething in hatred, willing to say all kinds of terrible things online against other races, religions and peoples. We know there are swathes of the Internet devoted to discussing how it is they can deprive other people of their civil rights, citizenship and dignity. Hell, a recent series on AmericanProgress.org spells out how it is that Islamophobia has been permitted to spread its roots in America. But I knew this before reading the manifesto and from my perspective, Breivik was among these people and organizations but he was different from them.
But can we really separate Breivik from organizations and political players who spread malicious hate? Is it specious of me to look at Diana West and Fjordman and Robert Spencer and that entire ilk of Islamophobic Marxist haters and maintain that they were not part of this? How about the people who give organizations money to spread hate? Did they play a role in the massacre on 7/22? Even if not a single person knew of what Breivik planned and didn’t offer him one thin dime to finance these murders, do the people who have made hate their mission in life have blood on their hands, too?
My American love of free speech forces me to say that Fjordman and Diana West and Pamela Geller all should be permitted to say any damn fool thing they want as long as it does not violate the most minor limitations put on free speech. A free and open society has to permit even the lousiest ideas to be expressed. And if the demagogues refuse to take responsibility for inspiring men like Breivik, for giving purpose to empty-souled Little Men who long to destroy the future in order to avenge their own sorry pasts, it should surprise no one. I fear there is no way for us to ever ensure the world is truly safe, but limiting basic human rights to communicate even nasty ideas will be a net loss for a free world.
That does not mean we should not read and watch these people. They don’t permit much opposition discussion on their sites, but we can watch and confront and make it clear that they stand alone, driving home to them that we know and the world knows their ideas will not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny. For every person like Fjordman and Daniel Pipes, there are many more of us who do not believe in conspiracy theory and who do not hate. Never forget that. In the wake of 7/22, it seems like there is an Islamophobe on every corner because we have suddenly been forced to reckon with them. That is what happened in the United States after the bombing in Oklahoma City. Suddenly it appeared as if there was a vast network of inter-related, anti-American, racist hate groups seething under the radar, noticeable only because Tim McVeigh forced us to see people we would never have noticed before.
That is not to say these people are not there. They are there and their rhetoric, to the right ears, can be fatal, though most racists and bigots never kill a single person. They just hate people. But even so, we outnumber them. And we can challenge them and make it clear that the protection they had as a result of our lack of awareness no longer exists. That doesn’t mean another Breivik won’t slip under our radars again. As I hope I have shown, a super-empowered person can and will slip under the radar. But it can’t hurt Pamela Geller to know that she is no longer preaching to the same Islamophobic crowd, that we are now in her audience. It would do her good to know the world knows she praised the deaths of children and that we find her despicable. It may feed her victim mentality but even in free speech there should be consequences and knowing you are under scrutiny that could leave you utterly marginalized just means that freedom of speech does not come without a price. That price is one we all could end up paying for speaking our minds and if attentiveness drives some bigots to stop speaking because they dislike the social consequences of free speech, that is not repression. It’s just cause and effect.
I’m sorry that I have no better answers, after expending so many words as I tried to understand this manifesto. I fear there may never be better answers as we deal with monsters and the people who inspire monsters than to simply be aware of them.
I wish the people of Norway peace as their monster goes to trial and I wish them recovery when he finally goes to prison. And if there are answers to be found, I hope they find them.