Part 1 of 2
Anders Breivik wanted notoriety. He is reported to have stated that he would become the most notorious killer since World War II. Although such an ambition is hardly practicable for one individual, no matter how avid at killing, for someone who preached on the conservative Right taking the “high moral ground,” his actions have resulted in the further demonization and alienation of Rightist ideas.
The news media have had a field day in headlining Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the “far Right,” and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik’ was an avid Zionist, whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarians and “neo-conservatives.” He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the “clash of civilizations.”
Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his only current organizational affiliation seems to have been with Freemasonry and with his own minuscule – and possibly non-existent “Knights Templar.” His ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a “Zionist,” a “stanch supporter of Israel,” and/or that of a “Mason”? Headlines could have read “Zionist extremist on shooting spree”; “Freemason massacres youngsters at Labor camp in Norway,” and the like.
The Atlantic Wire headlining their article summarizing the background of Breivik from several news sources reads: “Profile: The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway’s Massacre.” While focusing on his “right wing extremism” and “Christian fundamentalism,” there is a passing reference to his “interest” in Freemasonry. “Christian fundamentalism” has been a focus. While Christian fundamentalists are generally among the staunchest defenders of Israel as reflecting Biblical prophecy, Breivik was in no sense a “Christian fundamentalist,” or even a Christian per se. He equates Western Civilization with “Christendom,” and while this is a legitimate principle from a rightist and pan-European perceptive, the media references have again sought to obfuscate Breivik’s ideological commitments. Breivik, in describing the nature of his revived order of Knights Templar, which on his own account, only consisted of a few members worldwide, states that:
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).
Despite the catch-cries about Christianity, Breivik adhered to European secularism and the enlightenment. Such views are more apt for a Freemason than for an advocate of a revived Western Christendom. While he advocated banning the Islamic religion form Europe, he seems to have been totally oblivious to the intrinsically anti-Christian nature of Orthodox Judaism, and while he wrote at length on the supposed enmity between “Judaeo-Christianity” and Islam, he wrote nothing of the anti-Christian record of Israel, including the demolition of Christian holy sites and the common practice of spitting on Christian clergy in the Holy Land. Although he did recognise historical predominance of Jews in Leftist movements, this was an acknowledgement of the rivalry within Jewry between liberals and leftists on the one side and “neo-conservatives” and “right-wingers” on the other, the latter being considered his best potential allies in the fight against Islam. Breivik is Judaeophilic to the extent that he is Islamophobic, writing in his manifesto:
Regardless of what the Jewish communities motives are I think it’s imperative that they take a stance on multiculturalism and Muslim immigration as soon as humanly possible. They have to recognise that “multiculturalism” is the system that allows Europe to be Islamised and it’s obviously not in their interest to contribute to this. Jews will in a much larger degree start to support the “new right” (just like everyone else), who oppose multiculturalism as a means to stop Islamisation, at least this is my hope. In the back of their minds they realise that a Muslim Europe will be more “anti-Semitic” than a Christian Europe. Muslims don’t have the guilt complex that Europeans have. Many Jews feel they are trapped between the “bark and the wood,” they are both sceptical of Muslim immigration on one side and of the nationalist far right wing movements on the other side. Nevertheless, time is off [sic] the essence and it is imperative that the European Jewish community without delay take a stance on the ongoing Islamisation. Neutrality on this issue is not an option. The only way of doing this is to back the new right wing (antimulticulturalism, pro-Israel) groups and political parties (also manifested through views such as by moderate Jewish writers such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or).
Breivik’s opposition to Jewish leftists, as with his opposition to liberals and leftists of any type, is no more antagonistic towards Jews per se than the opposition of Jewish neo-cons towards Jews leftists. The above passage from Breivik is in total accord with the pro-Zionist neo-con party-line, as will be seen.
The New York Times defined Breivik as a “right-wing fundamentalist Christian.” The Daily Mail cogently carried the headline: “Norwegian massacre gunman was a right-wing extremist who hated Muslims.” Even alternative media such as Global Research have maintained the fiction, carrying an article calling him a “Christian fundamentalist” associated with the “extreme Right.” 
What is notable is that while there are there passing references to Freemasonry in these articles, there is not a single mention of one of the primary aspects of Breivik’s ideology, pro-Zionism and support for Israel. Although the implication is that Breivik is a “neo-nazi,” Breivik emphasized throughout his manifesto his opposition to three ideologies all of which he calls “hate” ideologies: Islam, Marxism and National Socialism. He wrote of Hitler:
The great Satan, his cult and the Jews. Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. … Hitler almost destroyed everything with his reckless and unforgivable actions and he will forever be known as a traitor to the Nordic-Germanic tribes.
Whether Breivik’s assessment of Hitler’s legacy is legitimate is not the point. Rather, it is a matter that has not been mentioned by the media accounts, any more than his Zionophilia.
Breivik is not a “conservative” or a traditionalist. He repudiates the traditionalism of René Guénon for example, because traditionalists recognize the validity of all remnants of tradition as valuable in a world in decay thanks to the spread of what the neo-cons laud as “Western values.” Guénon, as Breivik points out, was a Sufi. European traditionalists and revolutionary conservatives will seek out alliances with other traditionalists in confronting what traditionalist Julius Evola called the “revolt against the modern world.” Certain Muslims are more in accord with the aims of Western traditionalists than those neo-cons, plutocrats, and Zionists who laud their “war against terrorism” as upholding “Western values.” What exactly are these “Western values” that the “war on terrorism,” which the USA as the “leader of the free world,” seeks to impose on a global basis? What amounts to a global kulturkampf against all traditional values has been most cogently explained by neo-con military strategist Lt. Col. Ralph Peters:
We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.
Yes, foreign cultures are reasserting their threatened identities — usually with marginal, if any, success — and yes, they are attempting to escape our influence. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure, and you don’t have to die of it to be hindered or crippled in your integrity or competitiveness. The very struggle of other cultures to resist American cultural intrusion fatefully diverts their energies from the pursuit of the future. We should not fear the advent of fundamentalist or rejectionist regimes. They are simply guaranteeing their peoples’ failure, while further increasing our relative strength.
Does the “revolutionary conservative” (a term that Breivik applied to himself) have more in common with the Islamic “rejectionist” regimes, or with the American cultural “infection”? That is the question.
Additionally, the opposition to usury and the international debt finance system is a crucial issue that is better understood among Muslims than among Westerners, including nationalists and conservatives, and is also something that traditional Islam has in agreement with the traditional Catholic opposition to usury. Despite the detailed nature of Breivik’s manifesto, he mentions nothing about the central role of international finance, while his attitudes on economics are classical liberal rather than “revolutionary conservative.” Those he mentions as ideological influences include: Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Friedrich Hayek. He refers occasionally to Nietzsche, whose attitudes towards Islam would surely not meet with Breivik’s approval.
Israel & Islam
Breivik identifies with the Zionist extreme Right. This calls to mind the likes of the Jewish Defense League, Likud, the settler movement, etc. Breivik’s support for the expansion of Israeli borders north and south also reminds one of the “Greater Israeli empire” that has always been a basis of the Zionist “extreme right.” He sees Israel as the vanguard in the fight against Islam, writing:
While most people refer to Israel’s security fence as a “wall,” the fact remains that less than 5 percent of the barrier is actually concrete slab. The rest is a network of fence and sensors. The fence has cut terrorism incidents by more than 90% since its completion. What was the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area? The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000…
His justification for the “security wall” is the same party line as that of other pro-Zionists, including the neo-con ideologues. The main difference is that Breivik is happy to call this situation “apartheid,” while the neo-cons recoil at the word. Was Breivik inspired in his shooting rampage of Norwegian youths more by the example of the Israeli security forces than by the crusader knights?
Clash of Civilisations
Breivik is a product of the “clash of civilisations,” formulated by neo-con ideologues and used by American and Zionist interests to philosophically justify the so-called “war on terrorism.” He is the product of a legacy that is anything but “conservative” in the Western historical sense: an aspiring underground resistance fighter against the Islamic occupation of Europe, who, in other circumstances, would be honored as a war hero.
He sees Islamic laws and customs taking the place of Western laws. The attitude is no different to that of Sarkozy’s attempts to ban the Burka in public. This is not to argue whether Sarkozy’s call for the prohibition is right or wrong; it is merely to observe that Breivik is part of a process that is being legitimized by mainstream politicians in pursuit of pro-Zionist and pro-American agendas in the “clash of civilizations.”
It is also one of the many areas where Islam, as the remnant of a traditionalist creed that inexorably does come into conflict with the West in its secular-liberal cycle of decline, is an offense not only to neo-con so-called “right-wingers” but also to Western liberals who see it as an offense to feminism and “universal human rights.” Hence, an opinion piece in Australia’s Herald Sun quips: “Such controls on women’s sexuality are pointless, and that should be condemned along with other mumbo-jumbo still practiced across the world.”
The liberal secular humanists and the so-called “right” of the neo-con movement both want global uniformity based on so-called “Western” secular values of the type previously described by Ralph Peters as part of a global cultural war against traditional values and culture. Those values — as regards the burka, for instance — are often similar. It is from the perspective of opposing such global uniformity that the New Right in France in particular, so far from seeking the imposition of “Western” secular values, Sarkozy-style, advocates an “identitarian” approach that eschews cultural assimilation, although this has brought criticism and discord from other elements of the French Right.
Breivik stands for a uniform approach to cultural imposition, writing:
Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO.
Again it was symptomatic of the “clash of civilizations.” The cartoons published in Denmark were a contrived provocation against Muslims in order to create a climate of tension. It is such strategy of tension that Breivik sought in a more dramatic way. The American neo-con magazine Human Events, which by-lines itself as “leading conservative media since 1944,” was among the Western media that republished the cartoons. It is of added interest in that one of those instrumental in the 2006 Muhammad cartoon provocation was Daniel Pipes, cited previously as one of Breivik’s ideological gurus, who he calls a “moderate Jewish writer” along with Bat Ye’or. Christopher Bollyn, writing for American Free Press, stated of this:
The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal has turned out to be a major step forward for the Zionist Neo-cons and their long-planned “clash of civilisations,” the artificially constructed conflict designed to put the so-called Christian West against the Islamic world.
Bollyn wrote that Flemming Rose, the “cultural editor” who commissioned the cartoons for his newspaper Jyllands‑Posten, visited the Philadelphia office of Daniel Pipe’s website Middle East Forum in 2004. “Rose then penned a sympathetic article about Pipes entitled “The Threat from Islamism,” which promoted his extreme anti‑Islamic views without mentioning the fact that Pipes is a rabid Zionist extremist.” Bollyn cited references by the individual whom Breivik recommends as a “moderate Jewish writer,” Pipes having written that a “change of heart” of the Palestinians can only be achieved by their “being utterly defeated.” After three days of Muslim rioting in Denmark USA’s CNN TV network turned to Daniel Pipes as their pundit on the situation, who then blamed “Islamic extremists.” At the time, neo-con US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the Syrian and Iranian governments for protests in those states. Pipes appealed to Western liberal secular values in regard to the tumult that was sparked by his Danish comrade:
Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise. Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.”
This is the Breivik line that he learned at the metaphorical knees of his neo-con and Zionist gurus. Pipes at the time cited in support another Breivik ideological hero, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, which is part of the network of neo-con luminary David Horowitz. Pipes wrote: “Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand ‘resolutely with Denmark.’ The informative Brussels Journal asserts, ‘We are all Danes now.’”
Now Pipes states of Breivik that “authors and artists” such as himself cannot be held responsible for the actions of those they inspire and, like Robert Spencer and other neo-cons, he reiterates what seems to be their party-line on the matter by giving the example, among others, of how The Beatles’ “Helter Skelter” influenced Charles Manson. However, the connection is just not that cryptic: the neo-con coteries, including Daniel Pipes, have been promoting the “clash of civilizations” and when a foot solider goes rogue and gets out of control they protest: “don’t blame me.”
Pipes is more than a street corner agitator. He is a visiting fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, with columns appearing in newspapers around the world. He has lectured at the US Naval War College, Harvard and others and appears on leading TV networks. His Middle East Forum has a budget of $4,000,000.
In a 2010 interview with the Washington Post Pipes stated that he is no longer regularly criticised as Islamophobic because of the proliferation of more extreme Islamophobes. This means that Pipes’ and others such as Spencer and Horowitz now look “moderate” because of the shifting of the centre of Islamicophobic gravity by years of agitation. The interview also mentions a particularly interesting phenomenon; the support Pipes had given to the Dutch “right-wing” politician Geert Wilders who, like Breivik, wants to ban the Koran in The Netherlands. Pipes regards the “new crop of bloggers” as “unsophisticated,” yet:
Pipes says he shares “the same enemies” with people like Wilders and the new crop of bloggers. “We’re in the same trench but we have different views of what the problem is. We both see an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West. We are both against it, and want to maintain Western civilization. But we understand the nature of the problem differently.” Important distinction, in your eyes?
It is just this type of alliance between the neo-cons, Zionists and the European so-called “right-wing” that Breivik regards as a basis for the anti-Islamic civil war he hoped to foment in Europe. It is not an isolated phenomenon. The well-publicized English Defense League’s anti-Muslim demonstrations and riots are marked by the number of Israeli flags appearing amidst their shaven headed ranks. Breivik regards the EDL as one of the better organizations, writing:
The British EDL seems to be the first youth organization that has finally understood this. Sure, in the beginning it was the occasional egg heads who shouted racist slogans and did Nazi salutes but these individuals were kicked out. An organization such as the EDL has the moral high ground and can easily justify their political standpoints as they publicly oppose racism and authoritarianism.
According to the anti-Zionist former Israeli Gilad Atzmon, the EDL has formed a “Jewish Division,” which the London Jewish Chronicle states immediately drew “hundreds” of followers. The Division is led by Roberta Moore, who was interviewed by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and boasted of how the “Jews were exploiting” the EDL:
Roberta Moore, aged 39, the leader of the Jewish Division, admitted this week to Ha‘aretz that it is “actually the Jewish Division that exploits the EDL.” In an interview with the Israeli newspaper on 13 July 2010, she said: “They [the EDL] think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish Division. If anything, we are exploiting them.”
Of the previously mentioned Bat Ye’or, a Jewish woman of Egyptian birth, resident in Britain, she specialises in writing of Jewish experiences in Muslim states.[xxvii] Her theme of “Eurabia,” is a condemnation of emerging relations between Europe and the Arab states.[xxviii] It is a concept that was taken up by Breivik. Ye’or contends that “Eurabia” is a development of “nazi” and “fascist” origins in alliance with radical Arabs, and has placed European states in a foreign policy position inimical to the interests of both Israel and the USA. In other words, it is indicative of Europe as a “third force.” This “Eurabia” was formalised in 1974 in Paris in an association called Euro-Arab Dialogue. Ye’or has outlined her views in many articles, one of which was published in the neo-con National Review.[xxix] She has attracted the support of neo-cons such as Robert Spencer. From a Western cultural perspective, the concept of Eurabia so abhorred to Ye’or and other neo-cons, plutocrats and Zionists, is hopeful. The relations souring the Arabs states and the West are of intrusive origins and could be addressed diplomatically. The origins of poisoned relations between the West and the Arabs will now be considered.
1. U. Seghal, ‘Profile: The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway’s Massacre,” http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/christian-fundamentalist-charged-death-toll-norway-soars-past-90/40321/
That Breivik was a Freemason at the time of the killings is confirmed by his having been expelled from the Norwegian Order of Freemasons after the event. The Templar red cross that is carried on the Norwegian Freemasons’ coat-of-arms is also on the cover of Breivik’s manifesto, A European Declaration of Independence. See: Ivar A Skar, Sovereign Grand Master, “The Norwegian Order of Freemasons expressing compassion and care,” http://www.frimurer.no/ordenen/15-aktuelt/1192-the-norwegian-order-of-freemasons-expressing-compassion-and-care
2. A Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence (London: Pauperes Commilitones Chrsti Templique Solomonici, 2011), p. 1361. Breivik’s emphasis.
3. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994).
4. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (London: Pluto Press, 1999).
5. A Breivik, 2083, p. 1372.
6. S. Erlanger, S. Shane, “Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War,” New York Times, 23 July 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?_r=1&hp
8. Finian Cunningham, ‘Obama Reaction to Norway Massacre Betrays US “War on Terror” Fundamentalism,” Global Research, 23 July, 2011, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25752
9. Breivik, 2083, pp. 1162–63.
10. J. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World (Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 1995).
11. R Peters, ‘Constant Conflict,” Parameters, US Army War College, Vol. XXVII, Summer 1997, 4-14. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/ArticleIndex.cfm#index1997
Peters was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible for future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer for Eurasia, he served exclusively at the tactical level. He is a graduate of the US Army Command and General Staff College. Over the past several years, his professional and personal research took Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the countries of the Andean Ridge. He has published widely on military and international concerns. Peters retired in 1998 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and continues to write widely as a novelist, essayist and is a frequent media commentator, which includes a position as an analyst for Fox News.
12. Breivik, 2083, p. 373.
13. Breivik, 2083, p. 1215.
14. “Wall of Lies,” Front Page, 25 February 2011, http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/25/ucla-daily-bruin-prints-centers-wall-of-lies/
15. Jill Singer, “Ban burka in the name of freedom,” Herald Sun, 25 June 2009, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/ban-burka-in-the-name-of-freedom/story-e6frf7l6-1225739819063
16. A. Breivik, 2083, p. 677.
17. “Muhammed cartoon gallery,” Human Events, 2 February 2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12146
18. C. Bollyn, “Understanding the Roots of the Anti-Muslim Cartoon Scandal,” American Free Press, Vol. 6, no. 8, 20 February 2006. See: ‘War Without End,” http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/02/07/anti-muslim-cartoons-tied-to-neo-con-fanatic.php
19. D. Pipes, “Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism,” cited by C. Bollyn, ibid.
20. D. Pipes, “Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism,” danielpipes.org, http://www.danielpipes.org/3360/cartoons-and-islamic-imperialism
Originally published in the New York Sun, 7 February 2006.
21. D Pipes, danielpipes.com 24 July 2011, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/12/why-did-nidal-hasan-read-the-middle-east-forum
23. Michelle Boorstein, “Once Considered Anti-Islam, Senior Scholar says he’s now in the Middle,” The Washington Post, 18 August 2010. http://www.danielpipes.org/8777/in-the-middle
25. A Breivik, op. cit., p. 1240.
26. G. Atzmon, “British Zionists Join Far Right Organisation to Promote Islamophobia and Racism in UK,” 17 August 2010, http://deisraellobby.blogspot.com/2010/08/british-zionists-join-far-right.html
27. Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985).
28. Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005).
29. Bat Ye’or, “Eurabaria: The Road to Munich,” National Review, 9 October 2002, http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-yeor100902.asp
The Oslo Incident
Mihai Eminescu: Romania’s Morning Star
The Worst Week Yet: March 28-April 3, 2021
Requiem for a Jigger
British Broadcasting Coercion
The Worst Week Yet: March 21-27, 2021
Heroic Gunman Kills 10 Potential White Supremacists
Thwarting Jewish Conquest: Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together Part 6 of 6