Skip to content

The roots of Breivik's ideology: where does the romantic male warrior ideal come from today?

Breivik should be understood as an ideologue driven by reasons and not just as a psychological case. A careful reading of his 2083 manifesto reveals four distinct influences we need to understand: contemporary Islamophobic ideologies, cultural conservative/neo-Confederate traditions, elements of m

Published:

“As  a Justiciar Knight you are operating as a jury, judge and executioner  on behalf of all free Europeans. It  is better to kill too many than not enough ... the time for  dialogue is over ... the time for armed resistance has come”. Anders Behring Breivik, "2083".

The  terrorist attacks in Oslo were not an outburst of irrational madness,  but a calculated act of political violence. The carnage was a  manifestation of a certain logic that can and should be explained, if we  want to avoid a repetition. “Our shock attacks are theatre and theatre  is always performed for an audience”, writes Breivik.

The self-appointed  knight gave himself the stage name Sigurd – the Crusader,  and had in preparation distributed his manifesto to thousands of  recipients in the far-right Islamophobic milieu, posted a summary of its  content on YouTube, and provided the world’s journalists with  promotional pictures of himself in captivating poses, sporting formal  uniform or designed combat gear with the insignia “Marxist Hunter”.

When Breivik was brought to the pre-trial hearings, he was remarkably  contented. Newspapers and television channels had eagerly published his  promo photos, the YouTube film had been downloaded thousands of times,  the manifesto had already been translated to various languages,  including Dutch, Finish, French, German, Polish, Russian, and Serbian,  and hundreds of anti-Muslim websites and Internet users look to spread  it further. Hence, the attacks were carried out by a man with a faith  that he shares with the political milieu he is a product of, a milieu  that he is intent to guide into an even more violent path.

Let’s enter Breivik’s world of ideas by reviewing his extensive manifesto 2083,  named after the year by which the assailant imagines that his ultimate  goal should eventually have been achieved: a mono-cultural Christian  Europe without Muslims and traitors. It has been pointed out that the  work is largely a hotchpotch of texts, whose original authors are not  always acknowledged, which is true. It does not make 2083 less  interesting, as it gives us an opportunity to track his library. By  reading what Breivik read, we get an entry into his thinking.

The day after the attacks, Hans  Rustad - initiator of the Norwegian anti-Muslim Forum document.no where Breivik had been a frequent participant – revealed that "large parts" of 2083 was plagiarized from the Unabomber Manifesto,  published in 1995 by anti-modernist and technology critic Ted  Kaczynski, who conducted a series of 16 bomb attacks on universities and  airline companies. As the “exposure” was cabled around in the  mediascape, the parliamentary wing of the anti-Muslim scene that still  value its democratic veneer let out a sigh of relief.

But is it true?  Well, not really. Three (3) of the 1516 pages of Breivik’s 2083 are  taken from the Unabomber Manifesto, from a section where Kaczynski  attacks the "left". The rest comes from elsewhere. Looking at Breivik’s  main influences, four influential thought currents may be identified:  contemporary Islamophobic ideologies, cultural conservative/neo-Confederate traditions, elements of modern White Power  thinking, and anti-feminist thought, all framed by a distinctly romantic  male warrior ideal.

The  leitmotif is Islamophobic. Here, Breivik draws extensively on material  produced by American anti-Muslim writers Robert Spencer, Gregory M.  Davis, Andrew Bostom, and Daniel Pipes, British conspiracy theorist Bat  Ye'or (Gisèle Littman), Dutch far right politician Geert Wilders,  Flemish ultra-nationalist Koenraad Elst and the productive Norwegian  anti-Muslim author who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman, all of whom  have contributed significantly to the return of restyled brown parties  to Western European parliaments.

Evoking a Manichean struggle between  the forces of light and darkness, Breivik alleges that the Western world  for 1300 years has been locked in an apocalyptic conflict with “Islam”,  depicted as an animated being with a sinister agency, who tirelessly  seeks the eradication of Christian Europe, hailed as the outpost of  freedom in the world. Muslims, construed as an imagined collective  bestowed with inherent, timeless and malevolent features, have gradually  begun to colonize the West. Through continuous childbearing, they have  engaged in a demographic warfare that will be militarized as soon as  Muslims become sufficiently numerous. The masterminds of the Islamic  world conspiracy have contracted specific categories of Westerners:  politicians, scholars, corporate CEO's, and journalists who deceive the  good-hearted European folk with their talk about dialogue,  multiculturalism, and equality and label those who dare to speak the  truth "racists" and "Islamophobes."

To  make resistance possible, the spell cast by the intellectual traitors  needs to be broken. Here, Breivik mobilizes texts from cultural and  radical conservative ranks. In line with the main current of  anti-intellectual populism, Breivik lambasts "political correctness",  "multiculturalism" and "cultural Marxism" and its supposed hegemony in  the universities.

Without indicating that he has ever read or understood  the theories of those attacked, Breivik plagiarize William S. Lind,  director of the Centre of Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress  Foundation to decry the works of a series of seminal thinkers, including  Freud, Marx, Gramsci, Adorno, Reich, Marcuse, Foucault and Derrida, and  has a special grievance against Edward Said, postcolonial studies,  poststructuralism and queer theory. The perceived antidote is to banish  them all from the universities, and by restricting the syllabus to  conservative thinkers restoring the value of European culture and its  achievements, including the benefits of colonialism. This is easier said  than done, though, as the imagined power of the intellectual traitors  is held to be omniscient and omnipotent.

The  underdog position that enables Breivik to engage in a “resistance” is  construed by adopting two groundbreaking conclusions drawn by activists  within the modern white power milieu. In the late 1970s, early 1980s,  American white racist champions began to realize that they had lost the  battle for constitutional power. Enemies of the white race had overtaken  Congress and eradicated the race laws that previously had ensured white  American defined privileges. Hence, the 100% American patriotism of the  first thee waves of the Ku Klux Klan was definitely outdated. Violence  should no longer be primarily directed against blacks or new immigrants,  but aimed at the race traitors in power. When police authorities and  intelligence agencies transformed from friend to enemy, resistance could  no longer follow the classical model, with member-based organizations  that could be infiltrated and monitored. Instead, the strategy of  “leaderless resistance” developed, with a propaganda oriented public  branch that remained within the legal framework, and an armed  underground of clandestine cells and lone wolf assassins, who were  themselves responsible for financing and executing operations.

Seminal  to this development were former Klan leader Louis Beam, Odinist David  Lane of the Silent Brotherhood and Wotansvolk, and William Pierce,  author of the white racist bestsellers Turner Diaries and Hunter.  The perspective spread throughout the globalized white power milieu,  including to Sweden where it inspired (among others) the Laser Man, the  racist serial killer who haunted Stockholm in the early 1990’s and his  copy cat Laser Man 2, who shot a series of Muslim or Muslim-looking  immigrants in Malmoe in 2009 and 2010.

The sections of 2083 which deals  with organizational issues, military strategy and gives advice on how  to get weapons, make bombs, and plan attacks are fully in line with the  leaderless resistance perspective.

On  other key points, Breivik is at odds with the white power milieu. He is  noticeably ambivalent on the race issue, and 2083 both takes exception  to and yet simultaneously embraces racism. Breivik writes that he  initially “hesitated to including the word race, white or ethnicity” as I  “convinced myself originally that I was first and foremost against  Islam, and that writing about skin colour… would only complicate this  fight”.

Yet, by the end of the day, Breivik decided to include long  excerpts from the British National Party publication From Titans to Lemmings - The Suicide of the White Race.  On one issue, the break with the white power milieu is definite.  Breivik has no sympathy for anti-Semitism, and urges the pockets of Nazi  storm-troopers out there to reserve their hatred for Muslims. In this,  Breivik embraces the pro-Israeli right wing perspective of the English  Defence League and Sweden Democrats, seeing Israeli far right  politicians Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu as natural allies  in the war against Islam.

Feminism, as a movement for equality and emancipation, infuriated  Breivik greatly. Citing standardized cultural conservative notions,  Breivik decries feminism as an ideology contrary to nature that has  undermined family values and contributed to Western decadence. Born in  1979, Breivik nostalgically envision an imaginary world of the 1950s,  when men were men, women were housewives, children were well behaved,  and when there were neither criminality nor Muslims in our countries.

Feminists favour multiculturalism, care for refugees, and have feminized  Western men who thus have lost their ability to fight. This facilitates  the Muslim effort to Islamize Europe, which Breivik like conservative  authors Phyllis Chesler and Melanie Phillips believes will lead to a  real (rather than imaginary) female subordination. This opens the door  to the male warrior-hero's entrance.

Animated by heroic tales of the crusaders, movie epics such as 300, Lord of the Rings, Passion Of The Christ,  Serbian ultranationalist narratives of Radovan Karadzic's bloody  actions during the Bosnian civil war, and the exploits he performed in World of Warcraft,  Breivik felt equipped for battle.

Coming from a privileged family, his  father being a diplomat stationed in London and Paris, and his  stepfather a military officer, Breivik grew up in Skøyen, a wealthy  district in western Oslo. He went to the same primary school as the  royal children, continued to a prestigious school of economics, and  claims to have becoming a millionaire by successful stock trading and  e-business.

As a white, Christian, heterosexual man from an upper  middleclass family, Breivik believes that he has certain birth right  privileges that are now threatened by all sorts of minorities, delusions  of social equality, and the general decay of Western culture that has  opened the gates of Europe to the troops of its alleged arch-enemy,  Islam. Much like the radical conservative philosophers Julius Evola and  the young Ernst Jünger, Breivik is convinced that Western decay can only  be cured by cleansing violence.

2083 contains two ultimatums. Before  2020, Muslims should convert to Christianity, adopt Christian names,  abandon non-European languages, and get rid of foreign customs, or  prepare for expulsion and death. The Armed Forces in every European  country need to seize political control by coup d’états, declare martial  law, suspend the constitution, execute all traitors, expel all Muslims  and permanently ban Islam. Otherwise, the Knights Templar “will have no  choice but to take matters into our own hands”. Spectacular attacks  against traitors and Muslims – such as the ones Breivik carried out in  downtown Oslo and the youth camp at Utøya Island – will lead to a civil  war. “Innocent people will die, in the thousands”, but “the needs of the  many will always surpass the needs of the few”.

Mattias Gardell

<p>Mattias Gardell is professor of comparative religion at the University of Uppsala. His <a href="http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=sv&amp;u=http://www.teol.uu.se/staff/Mattias_Gar

All articles

More in Conflict & security

See all

More from Mattias Gardell

See all

Sweden's dirty little secret

/