Essay: Anders Breivik is the canary in the mine showing that right-wing politics could become much more violent

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anders Behring Breivik is the perpetrator of the July 2011 attacks in Norway that killed 77 people. A majority of the victims were Norweigan, leftist youth who were at a leftist retreat sponsored by the Workers' Youth League.

Anders Breivik's political and religious beliefs

Right-wing ideologies which have no mooring in Christianity or are significant influenced by Christianity, are inferior to ideologies which are strongly influenced by Christianity. Anders Breivik was not a Christian.[1][2]

The right-winger Anders Breivik was influenced by both right-wing politics and liberal/left-wing ideology to some extent.

Breivik was influenced by contemporary European right-wing politics.

He also embraced evolutionism/social Darwinism ( See: Anders Breivik—Social Darwinism leads to mass murder). See also: Evolution and liberalism

In addition, he was influenced by the ideology of the socialistic political party the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) (See also: Nazism and socialism). Breivik gave a Nazi like salute during a recent court appearance. Adolf Hitler was also greatly influenced by Darwinist ideology (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution).

To a large degree Breivik was non-religious which is not surprising given that he was raised in country dominated by secular leftism. He was on the borderline of being on the non-religious right and the secular right. Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he said is related to European culture, he stated, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)". Furthermore, Breivik indicated "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God." Regardless, he said he planned to pray to God for help during his attacks.

Nazism and socialism

For more information please see: Nazism and socialism

One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party), led by Social Darwinist Adolf Hitler.[3][4][5]

As noted above, Anders Breivik was influence by the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI).

The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.[6]

There is debate about the similarities between Nazism and socialism. Despite whether Nazism is socialist or not, they, with the help of general improvement of economic conditions in Europe, helped propel Germany out of the Great Depression with their economic policy.[7]

Violence: Secular left, secular right, right-wing politics and modern conservatism

The secular left has a more murderous past than the secular right (see: Atheism and mass murder).

Breivik's murderous rampage is unusual in that modern Norweigan's are well-known for being calm and not easily angered. The Norweigan-American Walter Mondale wasn't exactly known for his fiery speeches. And even during his rampage, Breivik was described as being very calm. In addition, Norway has a cultural heritage of Protestantism and irreligious countries with a cultural heritage of Protestantism are generally very peaceful in recent times (see: Atheism and world peace). Of course, this makes his rampage more troubling. If this could happen in even tempered Norway, how much more could something like this happen in less placid areas of Europe.

The alt-right advocate Vox Day has now repeatedly dubbed Breivik "Saint Breivik" and said that statues of Breivak will be erected throughout Europe.[8][9] Where was Day raised? Day was raised in Minnesota which is known for "Minnesota nice" and many Norweigan Minnesotans.

Is Day serious? My guess is that he most likely is serious. Why? Day sees the frequent German attacks on immigrants and the anti-immigrant marches in Europe (See: Germany reveals frequent attacks on immigrants, Financial Times, February 2017). Furthermore, Day is convinced that the alt-right will be a dominant force in the history of the future. And the victors generally write the history books.

Are there any other indications that Day is serious? Yes, there are.

For example, Day wrote about migrant boats attempting to reach Europe:

When the migrant flotilla began, I immediately said that the boats and ships carrying migrants should be sunk as soon as they enter international waters. For this, I was decried by more than a few, even on the Right, as a monster. Just remember, then, that all of you who took the "moral" position of not sinking the ships bear at least some responsibility for both the invasion of Europe and the reinstitution of slavery.[10]

Day also wrote:

As for the humanitarians, note that 4,000 people have drowned trying to cross the sea to Europe this year. Thousands of people are dead because the humanitarians weren't willing to sink the first 10 boats and make it clear that no one would be permitted to invade Greece and Italy from the sea.[11]

The growth of right-wing politics outside of conservatism (white nationalism, alt-right, right-wing populism), the tactic of censorship by the left (political correctness, etc.) which includes using violence to censure free speech, is helping to cause right-wing politics to become more violent.

Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)

Modern conservatism is fairly staid and due to the influence of religious conservatism which includes Jesus Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek, it very non-violent in terms of domestic politics. In terms of foreign policy, until the advent of neoconservatives (which very arguably are not conservatives at all), conservatives in the West had a decent track record when it came to peaceful foreign policy.

And thanks to the political activist Reverend Martin Luther King (MLK), the civil rights movement was to a very large degree non-violent. And MLK had significant amount of influence on liberalism and American culture as a whole. But as time marches forward, MLK's influence on the left has waned in terms of his advocacy of non-violence in politics.

Donald Trump is for physical counterpunching when it comes to countering leftist violence against Trump supporters.[12] He is no Mohandas K. Gandhi and that is probably due to his background (He has been around blue collar construction workers and New Yorkers can be very assertive). He is also very sympathetic to Trump supporters using violence in response to liberal agitators inciting Trump supporters and to Trump supporters using violence against leftists shutting down speech at Trump events (although he largely prevented that via the use of security).

But Trump's policy about the use of violence is largely reactive and proportional (reactive like Rambo's - they drew first blood).

Breivik's murder spree among Workers' Youth League camp

Breivik killed many youth in the Workers' Youth League which is affiliated with Norway's left leaning Labour Party. The killings took place during one of their retreats at a camp. Incidentally, two days before the killings, the youth group was pushing for a stricter boycott of Israel. Also: "The Workers Youth League which ran the camp had a long history of supporting the same kind of terrorists who had perpetrated the Maalot Massacre."[13]

The future: How much politically motivated violence will happen in the West?

Anders Breivik is the canary in the mine showing that right-wing politics could significantly become more violent - especially when it is mixed with irreligious/liberal ideology.

In absence of a Christian religious revival in the West, the violence being used against the left now, may only be the tip of the iceberg unless the left lets off some political steam by ceasing their strong arm and censoring tactics. John Wesley is frequently credited with avoiding the violent revolution in England that France had during the French Revolution.

It is my hope that the left in the West loses power as peacefully as possible. In my essay Liberal meltdown and desperation tactics: A look at the future, I mentioned some hopeful signs such as Generation Z showing signs of being far more conservative than millenials. In addition, Jesus said that blessed are the peacemakers and evangelical Christianity is growing in Europe (see: Growth of evangelical Christianity and European desecularization in the 21st century). Hopefully, Europe sees a Christian religious revival and this is not beyond the realm of possibility.[14]

The article Atheism vs. Islam points out that both the secular left and Islam have a great deal of violence/intolerance in their respective histories. If there is a lot of bloodshed in Europe and other Western countries, the fault will probably rest on Islamic extremists (and their sympathizers within the Islamic community) and the secular leftists who insisted that large numbers of Muslim immigrants enter the Western World. In addition, there is a lot of unnecessary riling up of Muslims in secular France via job discrimination and policies such as the headscarf banning. These type of irritants could grow in France and Europe if cultural conflict increases between Muslims and native Europeans.

On the whole, absent a Christian revival in Europe and a great deal of successful peacemaking efforts, I am pessimistic about Europe largely escaping a significant amount of violence over the long term. Even if Muslim immigration was drastically reduced, the Muslim population will grow and grow due to their higher birth rates. If if the Muslim fertility rates fall, the Islamic extremists will still have high fertility rates. And the greater the percentage of Muslims in the population of countries, the more militant they will become and this is supported by good data (see: What Islam Isn't - Dr. Peter Hammond). And I don't see the Muslims leaving Europe voluntarily.

What are the odds that successful peace negotiations could happen with Muslims who live in close proximity with native Europeans within a given nation? Specifically, in cases where Muslims were a high percentage of a countries total population.

In his book The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day wrote:

It’s also interesting to note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations, which is rather more than might be statistically expected considering that the first war in which Islam was involved took place almost three millennia after the first war chronicled in the Encyclopedia, Akkad’s conquest of Sumer in 2325 B . C .

In light of this evidence, the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of conflict around the globe cannot reasonably be used to indict all religious faith, especially when one considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious faiths combined only account for 3.35 percent of humanity’s wars.[15]

So I would say the odds are very slim for Europe to avoid significant bloodshed given that the percentage of Islamic fundamentalists is growing in the Islamic population due their much higher birth rates.

On top of all this, the prospects of economic growth in Europe look poor in Europe. And who will probably be one of the scapegoats in the eyes of many? It will not be the Jews. Germans and other Europeans won't be able to blame the Jews for these economic troubles (like the Germans did in Nazi Germany). The Jews are fleeing Europe due to Islamic violence against them. One of the primary scapegoat among the native European population will probably be immigrants - particularly Muslim immigrants who are already widely disliked. I have my doubts that many native Europeans will look in the mirror in terms of their troubles instead of blaming scapegoats, but I could be surprised.

Historian: European Civil War Within 30 Years

United States

In the United States, there is increasing ethnic/political violence. How much of this was due to the Obama administration cynically stoking up racial conflict for political gain and failing to quell violent race related riots, I don't know, but it certainly didn't help. Identity politics does appear to be growing and firmly entrenched in American politics. I don't see it ending anytime soon.

And America is changing demographically and many people are resistant to change and get upset by change.

Additionally, you have a shrinking middle class which could raise class conflict.

A bright spot though is evangelical Christianity quickly growing in the Hispanic American community (see: Protestant cultural legacies). In addition, there are the positive developments I mentioned previously.

This essay's prediction came true

On May 26, 2017, I created this essay and said there was going to be a right-wing terror attack related to the Muslims in Europe issue.

On June, 19, 2017, which less than a month later, a white guy plows a van into a group of Muslim in front of a mosque (see: 'By God's grace we managed to protect him': Hero imam describes moment he saved Finsbury Park terror suspect who was shouting 'kill me now' after 'ploughing into worshippers leaving a mosque', Daily Mail).

With all these Muslim terror attacks against the West and given the changing character of the membership of right-wing politics, it was just a matter of time before a right-wing terror attack occurred against Muslims.

Other essays

External links