Oslo 22/7, Islamophobia, and the Quest for a Monocultural Europe
The synchronized terror attacks on July 22, 2011 was the worst politically motivated assault in post-WW2 Norway. To the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, 22/7 was a “marketing operation,” designed to draw attention to his compendium, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. While Breivik acted alone, his political philosophy is far from unique. Through a detailed analysis of the compendium’s content, identifying the original authors whose texts Breivik used but did not always acknowledge, this essay discusses the political traditions that informed the assailant’s worldview: Islamophobia (anti-Muslim racism), cultural conservative nationalism, antifeminism, and selected elements of White Power thought, far Right evangelical theology, and the Knights Templar tradition, all permeated by romantic male warrior ideals. The stunning violence of July 22 was a hyper-masculine performative act aimed at producing a heroic avant-garde of nationalist warriors who will rise to purge Europe from the corrupting influence of its internal enemies and defeat its external enemies. Through the cleansing fire of the civil war, he believes that a reborn Europe will arise to reclaim its ordained position of glory as the world’s leading civilization. In the final analysis, Breivik’s political philosophy may thus be recognized as a 21st-century articulation of the fascist legacy.
Keywords antifeminism, fascism, Islamophobia, Knights Templar, leaderless resistance, monoculturalism, political violence
About the author
Mattias Gardell holds the Nathan Soderblom Chair in Comparative Religion at Uppsala University, Sweden.
Address correspondence to Mattias Gardell, History of Religion, Uppsala University, Box 511, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: email@example.com
Friday afternoon July 22, 2011, a homemade bomb made with fertilizers, fuel, and chemicals detonated in the complex of buildings housing the Norwegian government in downtown Oslo. Placed in a rental truck parked outside the office of prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, head of the Social Democratic Labour party, the bomb devastated the first floor and blew out the windows of adjacent government buildings. Had the assailant not been delayed that morning, the bomb would have detonated before most people left the office for the weekend. Yet, eight people died and 11 more were critically injured by the blast and flying debris. The assailant then took the ferry to Utøya, a small island a short drive from Oslo annually hosting the summer camp of the Labour Party’s Youth League. Having shot the camp guard, the killer, who wore a police uniform, entered the camp centre. Pretending to bring news about the terror attack in Oslo, he summoned the youth, and opened fire. For more than an hour, he calmly circulated the island; systematically executing the youngsters he found hiding or trying to escape by swimming away from the island. At Utøya, he murdered 69 people and wounded 41, including 18 hospitalized in critical conditions. When finally an armed unit from the national counterterrorism task force arrived, the killer laid down his arms, raised his hands, saying “I’m done here.”
Lethal political violence in Norway has almost exclusively been perpetrated by far-right extremists. Yet, terrorism experts, media, and politicians instantly blamed Islamic terrorists. “Most likely al-Qaida is behind it,” Magnus Ranstorp at the Swedish National Defence College stated, referring to Norway’s military engagement in Afghanistan and Libya, and the Muhammad Cartoons published by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten as the probable cause. “It’s only natural to conclude that this is linked to the conflict between the West and radical Islam,” his Norwegian colleague Helge Lura˚s filled in, “though it need not be an organized group with an international agenda. It might also be a local group of [Muslim] immigrants hostile to Norwegian society.” Reporters voiced similar opinions. “Al-Qaeda Massacre. Norway’s 9/11,” the Sun shouted. “Who is responsible for these attacks? Well, Norway has been grappling with home-grown terror plots linked to al-Qaeda,” MSNBC asserted. “This is probably Middle Eastern in its origin,” Fox News explained. “It appears, once again, to be the works of Muslim extremists.” “This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists,” wrote The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. “[A]s the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating.” Politicians stood up against the Islamic threat. “The entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring,” Barack Obama said. “And so we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.” “These attacks are a stark reminder of the threat we all face from terrorism,” UK Prime Minister David Cameron solemnly added. “We will work with Norway to hunt the murderers who did this and prevent any more innocent deaths. We can overcome this evil, and we will.” NATO SecretaryGeneral Anders Fogh Rasmussen assured the people of Norway and everyone else that all the “NATO countries stand united in the battle against these acts of violence.” During the first few hours, Muslims in Norway and Sweden, who knew no more than any other citizen about the massacre, were attacked or harassed, and Linus Bylund, party secretary of the anti-Muslim and ultranationalist Sweden Democrats warned, “Next bastard whining about taking pity with all the good Muslims when Norwegians lay bleeding on the streets will be taken care of.”
When it became clear that the terrorist was not a Muslim but a Norwegian Christian, a remarkable shift of attitude occurred. No one urged Christian Scandinavians to take exception to their religion and culture, Cameron stopped talking about hunting down the murderers to overcome evil, and NATO rethought the wisdom of responding to the attack by military intervention. When the Sweden Democrats realized that the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, had extensive contacts with party activists and justified his assault in a text with notable similarities to their own publications, the Sweden Democrat’s leadership suddenly found the idea of politicizing the attacks to be reprehensible.
In contemporary public discourse, the phrase “terror attack” seems dependent on the adjective “Islamic” to such an extent that it seems hard to think the one without the other. Without a Muslim perpetrator, columnists and pundits suddenly were less confident about labeling the act terrorism or even politically motivated. Mainstream media overnight replaced their Islamic terrorism experts with psychiatrists to explain the attacks now thought of as the insane acts of a mentally deranged individual. “Right-wing or left-wing extremism is unimportant,” forensic psychiatrist Ulf A[˚] sga˚rd said, suggesting that Breivik suffered from “assorted personality disorders: psychopathy, narcissism, borderline, as well as obsessive– compulsive disorder.” Sten Levander, professor emeritus of forensic psychiatry, asserted that Breivik “suffered from delusional disorder of the grandiose type,” while psychiatrist Lars Bohman claimed that it was “incorrect to label [Breivik] a racist or even xenophobic. It was government buildings he blew up—not a mosque.” Bohman found the compendium’s political contents irrelevant, highlighting instead Breivik’s supposedly “suppressed” sexuality.
Based on the notion that forensic psychiatry is a precise if not absolute science, forensic psychiatry has had an elevated status in the Norwegian legal system. This status was undermined during the ten-week long Breivik trial, as the two courtassigned teams to assess the defendant’s mental state reached conflicting conclusions. Psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim found Breivik to be paranoid schizophrenic and hence not criminally responsible for his acts. Their evaluation was challenged by psychiatrists Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, who determined that the defendant was a dissocial narcissist, but not psychotic and hence criminally sane. In addition, no less than eleven alternative diagnoses—ranging from Asperger to Tourette syndrome—were suggested by other experts during the trial, none of whom deemed the defendant criminally insane.
Husby and Sørheim based their conclusion that Breivik suffered from paranoid schizophrenia on two main findings: his grandiose delusions and his use of what they mistook for neologisms (e.g., cultural Marxist, suicidal humanist, national Darwinist). Of course, grandiose delusions are hardly new to Western politics, as evidenced by the doctrine of the superiority of the white race, the delusion of a Jewish world-conspiracy, and, more recently, the idea of civilization’s war against evil. Certainly, the notion of “Islam” and “Europe” as two essentially distinct and incompatible entities engaged in a 1,300-year war of extermination is a delusion, but it was not concocted by Breivik. Had Husby and Sørheim looked at the political milieus that Breivik referred to in their conversations and his writings, they would have realized that his worldview and key concepts were not his own fabrications, but produced by others and widely circulated in the cultural conservative and anti-Muslim milieu.
How then are we to understand Breivik’s political philosophy?
To Breivik, July 22 was a “marketing operation” to draw attention to his 1516-page compendium, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, which he, hours prior to the attack, mailed to one thousand selected recipients active in the anti-Muslim and right-wing networks, asking the “patriots” to translate and distribute the work. Soon, the compendium appeared in Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Serbian, and Spanish and was circulated by hundreds of anti-Muslim websites and individuals. The title 2083 refers to the year by which Breivik imagines that his ultimate goal should have been achieved: a monocultural, patriarchal Christian Europe without Muslims, Marxists, multiculturalists, or feminists. The subtitle is taken from an essay by the Norwegian blogger Fjordman (Peder Nøstvold Jensen), who is a main source of inspiration to Breivik and the wider anti-Muslim milieu. In his Declaration of Independence, Fjordman claims that European politicians had betrayed their constituencies by establishing the EU and opening Europe to hostile Muslim immigration with the secret aim of merging Europe with the Arab world to become “Eurabia,” the land of the un-free. “Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonization by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamization and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason.”
2083 is not a manifesto but a compendium, i.e., a compilation of texts, the majority of which Breivik has not himself written. Many essays are included in their entirety, such as Fjordman’s A European Declaration of Independence; others are copied in selected parts. In some texts, Breivik modified the wording to fit the context, such as when replacing “American” with “European” in a cultural conservative piece that decries the alleged feminization of the white American male. Breivik may or may not refer to the original authors of the essays compiled. When analyzing the compendium, I have used search engines to identify the original authors whom Breivik did not acknowledge. Hence, Breivik’s sources and main influences have been established. Thereby, it is also possible to ascertain what the compendium is not. Besides wild speculations that 22=7 was a Mossad and=or Freemason operation, two incorrect allegations do merit comment as they continue to float around in the debate. The day after the attacks, Hans Rustad—editor of the Norwegian anti-Muslim forum document.no where Breivik had been a frequent participant— revealed that “large parts” of 2083 were plagiarized from the Unabomber Manifesto, published in 1995 by anti-modernist and technology critic Ted Kaczynski, who carried out a series of 16 bomb attacks against universities and airline companies. Johan Lundberg, then editor-in-chief of the cultural conservative magazine and news hub Axess, inflated the claim by alleging that the Unabomber provided the “ideological kernel” of Breivik’s ideology. As Lundberg’s “exposure” was cabled around in mediascape, the parliamentary wing of the anti-Muslim scene let out a sigh of relief. Is the claim correct? Well, not really. Three of 1516 pages are taken from the Unabomber Manifesto, from a section in which Kaczynski decries the left (substituted for multiculturalists by Breivik). The remaining 1513 pages come from elsewhere. The second misrepresentation alleges that Breivik is an al-Qaeda copycat. Interviewed by Time, Magnus Ranstorp characterized Breivik’s work as “a complete mirroring of al-Qaeda, a cut-and-paste image of a jihadist manifesto.” The fact that Ranstorp did not substantiate his argument by identifying which sections of Breivik’s compendium were compiled from which jihadist manifesto is hardly surprising, as Breivik found his material elsewhere, including at Ranstorp’s research centre from which he lifted a 25-page text in its entirety.
Examining the ideological contents of the 2083 compendium, Breivik’s worldview is found to be mainly influenced by the Islamophobic tradition, cultural conservative nationalism, and antifeminism, combined with substantial elements from White Power thought, selected aspects of right-wing evangelical theology, and material from the Knights Templar tradition, all imbued with romantic male warrior ideals with its call for heroism, bravery, and sacrifice. Breivik firmly stands in the fascist tradition, in accordance with Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism “as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one which sets out to be a political, social, and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with new heroic values. The core myth which inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.” In Breivik’s version, this project is centered on the vision of a reborn Europe that, purged from internal enemies (cultural Marxists and feminists), will rise out of the ashes of humiliating multiculturalism to defeat its external enemy (Islam and Muslims) and retake its position of glory as the world’s leading civilization.
Islamophobia is not a “phobia” in terms of clinical psychology; it does not denote an individual anxiety disorder or an irrational fear disproportional to the actual danger posed by the object of fear. As in the concepts “xenophobia” and “homophobia,” the suffix “phobia” is used in a transferred sense to connote socially, culturally, and politically produced prejudice, aversions, and discrimination against specific categories of humans, in this case Muslims. Islamophobia proceeds from an essentialist understanding of “religion” and “culture” that views religion and culture as distinct monolithic entities bestowed with certain inherent qualities that determine how those associated with a specific religion and culture think and act; that define their being. According to this logic, it is legitimate to talk about “how Muslims are.” Narratives about “how Muslims are” (e.g., Muslims are violent, Muslims are terrorists, Muslims are oppressive to women, Muslims are a threat against freedom of expression) appear to have been normalized to such an extent that their racist premise seems obscured. How would we react to narratives about “how Jews are” or “how Blacks are”? While Muslims, of course, do not constitute a “race,” Islamophobia operates as racism, as evidenced by discrimination in the labor market, hate crimes, police profiling, et cetera.
In Islamophobic discourse, “how Muslims are” is said to be determined by “Islam,” perceived of as a living being, bestowed with specific features and an agency of its own. In Islamopbobic literature, we encounter an “Islam” that walks, talks, commands, oppresses, hates, deceives, conspires, wages war, expands, and retracts. Moreover, this “Islam” seems to be the source of an inborn essence of eerie “Muslimness” that prevents a Muslim living in the West, in Sweden for instance, from becoming a Westerner; he or she remains “Muslim” and not a “Swede” even if born in Sweden by parents born in Sweden. In “moderate” Islamophobic discourse, one frequently encounters a distinction between “good” and “bad” Muslims, what Stephen Schwartz termed the “two faces of Islam,” in which good Muslims are like us, and bad Muslims hate us. Hence, the closest a “Muslim” may come to the speaking “us” is to be “like us,” where the inserted “like” maintains the critical separation between “them” and “us.” A two-faced being, of course, is a beast, and less moderate Islamophobic discourse informs us that seemingly good-hearted, law-abiding, and likable Muslims conceal their true evil nature in an effort to fool gullible Westerners into letting down their guard. This, we are told, is the principle of taqqiya (dissimulation)—a concept developed in Shiite jurisprudence during the 8th century to protect Shiite minorities from persecution, but which Islamophobic discourse recasts to connote an all-Muslim feature: they lie to deceive non-Muslims as a service to their (false or evil) God.
To Breivik, Muslims are the archenemies of Europe. On this subject, Breivik is heavily influenced by a host of anti-Muslim ideologues and militant movements, predominantly, but not exclusively involved with the Counter Jihad scene that arose in the early 2000s to combat what they saw as “Islam’s” effort to colonize and eventually subdue the Western world. In Europe, the Counter Jihad milieu consists of anti-Muslim populist parties, street fighting “Defence Leagues” (modeled on the English Defence League whom Breivik admired), “Stop Islamisation” national groups (modeled on Stop Islamisation of Denmark, SIAD), and individual champions, and in the U.S. of well-financed ideologues, lobby groups, think tanks, preachers, radio=television hosts, and grass-root evangelicals. In 2007, the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, Anders Gravers Pedersen of SIAD, and Baron Bodissey (Edward S. May), American editor of anti-Muslim blogs Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal, summoned the first transatlantic Counter-Jihad meeting in Copenhagen. Since then, yearly Counter Jihad Summits, attracting a rising number of anti-Muslim celebrities and ultranationalist party leaders, have been organized in Brussels in 2007, Vienna in 2008, Copenhagen in 2009, Zurich in 2010, Strasbourg in 2011, and Brussels in 2012. These conventions, May emphasizes, do not aim at uniting all anti-Muslim ideologues and movements into a single organization. “No, we are a network of networks,” without a “chain of command.” “No party line. No one in control of what happens. Our unity in mission arises from a common goal: to resist the Jihad in all its forms. Anything else is details.” “We need to be prepared for the rough times ahead. Parts of Europe will descend into civil war in the relatively near future, and the way that we have lived for the past sixty years will be gone.”
Counter-Jihadis have been particularly active on the Internet, where Breivik came across their message at interconnected anti-Muslim online journals, news-hubs, and blogs, primarily Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal, Jihad Watch, and Front Page Magazine. Breivik was especially impressed by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Andrew Bostom, Bruce Bawer, Serge Trifkovic, and Baron Bodissey from the U.S., and Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, and “Fjordman” (Peder Nøstvold Jensen) from Europe.
Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have become millionaires from the antiMuslim industry. They are co-founders of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), and American Defense Initiative, and run the prominent anti-Muslim blogs Jihad Watch (Spencer) and Atlas Shrugs (Geller)— all named anti-Muslim “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center—and are both prolific writers, with books such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (Spencer, 2005), Stop Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (Geller, 2011), and The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Spencer and Geller, 2010). Andrew Bostom is a medical doctor who pursues exegetical studies of the Koran and Hadith collections to prove that wars of aggression and Jew-hatred is inherent in Muslim nature. Bruce Bawer, an American living in Norway, authored the alarmist While Europe Slept (2006) and published The New Quislings (2012) after 22=7, in which he labels the Norwegian media and political leadership Quislings (i.e., traitors), and complains about having been vilified only because Breivik cites his works. Serge Trifkovic, author of Defeating Jihad (2006), is the foreign affairs editor of the conservative magazine Chronicles, and was advisor to war criminal Biljana Plavsic´, then president of Republika Srebska, during the Bosnian Civil War.
Flamboyant Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Muslim Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) ranks as a hero among Counter Jihadists for his efforts to ban the Koran, mosques, and Muslim immigration and for proposing to put all antisocial (Muslim) criminals in “scum camps” (tuigdorp). British conspiracy theorist Bat Ye’or (Gise`le Littman) popularized the Eurabia concept in bestselling books claiming to expose the alleged Islamic world-conspiracy, including Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005) and Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate (2011). Her disciple Fjordman regularly contributes to Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal, and other Counter Jihadist websites with his inflammatory essays, 39 of which Breivik included in full, and is arguably Breivik’s single most important influence.
By utilizing the works of these anti-Muslim authors, Breivik evokes a Manichean struggle between the forces of Light and Darkness, alleging that the Western world is locked in an apocalyptic conflict with “Islam,” depicted as a sinister Being who tirelessly seeks the eradication of Christian Europe. Muslims are construed as an imagined collective, by “nature” bestowed with inherent, timeless, and malevolent features said to derive from “Islam,” which sets them apart from universal man. The racist logic underlying the figure of the Eternal Muslim is integral to the theory of an Islamic world conspiracy that Breivik promotes, and allows Breivik to link Muslims “here” with the perceived threat from Muslims “there,” which, as noted by Arjun Appadurai, simultaneously appeals to the aversion to small numbers—the hatred of minorities— and the fear of the masses. We are told that two previous attempts of the Muslim hordes to overrun Europe were halted at the last minute, at Poitiers in 732 and at the gates of Vienna in 1683, respectively.
Now, the third and final effort is well underway. Citing Fjordman, Breivik writes:
Our ancestors, better men and women than we are, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilisation itself, but quite possibly the world in general from unchallenged Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are no less than they were then, possibly even greater.
This time, the cunning Muslims have enlisted traitors within the Western political and intellectual elite who have allowed the enemy to establish breeding colonies on European soil. Muslim reproduction in Europe, Breivik asserts, constitutes a demographic warfare that will be militarized as soon as Muslims become sufficiently numerous. Hence, Breivik claims, again by using Fjordman, “the EU is formally surrendering an entire continent to Islam while destroying established national cultures, and is prepared to harass those who disagree with this policy. This constitutes the greatest organized betrayal in Western history, perhaps in human history.”
Fortunately for those erecting barricades to stop the Islamisation of Europe, the sinister scheme has been exposed by dedicated anti-Muslim investigators who have found the masterminds’ secret minutes. Borrowing from Anti-Semitic tales of a Jewish world-conspiracy, anti-Muslim conspiracy theory comes complete with its own version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Breivik includes two versions of the Muslim world-conspiracy. From Bat Ye’or, Breivik derives the allegation that the occult conspiracy utilizes vehicles of transnational cooperation such as the EuropeanArab Dialogue, the Barcelona Process (the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership), and the Alliance of Civilizations (whose initiator the Spanish prime minister Jose´ Luis Rodrı´guez Zapatero, we are told, was appointed by al-Qaeda) to establish Eurabia and reduce all decent white European Christians to humiliating servitude. Breivik goes on to mobilize the work of Swiss-French conspiracy theorist Sylvain Besson, who claims to have uncovered “The Project,” codename of an alleged Muslim Brotherhood scheme to infiltrate and subdue the West; a plan exposed when an untitled protocol was found in a Swiss mansion belonging to an Egyptian-born businessman.
The conspiracy is close to fruition. “This is the third major Jihad, the third Islamic attempt to subdue the heartland of the West,” Breivik (through Fjordman) dramatically suggests. He continues:
There will be no fourth Jihad. Either Muslims will win this time, or Islam itself will be handed a defeat and a blow so powerful that it may never recover from it. This is perhaps the longest, continuous war in human history. And it’s about to be decided within the coming decades. I’m not sure how all of this will play out. What I do know is that it could all be decided on my watch, and I don’t want to be the weak link in something my ancestors kept intact for 1300 years.
Cultural Conservative Nationalism
Breivik positions himself at the vanguard of a “national resistance” that seeks to purge his country and Europe from cultural Others and the enemies within, cultural Marxists, multiculturalists, and feminists, who are charged with seeking to deconstruct the “natural” hegemony of the white Christian heterosexual male in favor of a social revolution based on what Breivik sees as the contra-natural idea of human equality. Of course, to Breivik, cultural Marxism and feminism are intertwined. Yet, gender issues and antifeminism remain keys to his project, and will be discussed separately.
For more than a decade, the cry that “multiculturalism has failed” has been recited by a host of mainly conservative politicians, columnists, and populist parties. Yet, what exactly its critics mean by the term remains elusive. What multiculturalism is seems less important than to be against it. Despite, or maybe thanks to, its notorious vagueness, multiculturalism may be blamed for a wide range of social ills and has become a privileged rhetorical tool to rephrase racist and xenophobic opinions. More than a descriptive term to acknowledge human diversity and the fact that a variety of cultures coexist in any given society, multiculturalism is by definition an –ism, typically cast as a sinister ideology threatening to undermine the value or even the existence of the culture the critics of multiculturalism construe as the organic, benign, natural, native, original culture of the nation.
Besides calling for a nationalist revolution to “re-establish” monocultural Europe, Breivik contributes by providing a theory of who the agents of multiculturalism supposedly are and how their scheme operates. In addition to building on Fjordman, Breivik here compiles—typically without proper references—texts by a variety of predominantly American conservative writers, including William S. Lind, director of the Center of Cultural Conservatism; T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., president of the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute and once presidential advisor of Ronald Reagan; Gerald L. Atkinson, retired commander of the U.S. Naval Academy and editor of Eternal Vigilance and New Totalitarianism, Raymond V. Raehn, founder of the World Anti-Communist League-linked Global Security Council and member of the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens; Daniel L. Adams, co-founder of Stop Islamization of America and contributor to conservative online magazines, including New England Review, American Thinker, and Family Security Matters, and Koenraad Elst, a Flemish traditionalist=radical conservative nationalist and freelancing Orientalist scholar sympathetic to the right-wing Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) movement.
Through utilizing texts by these authors, Breivik builds his case that the West— counterfactual as it may seem—lost the cold war because its leaders did not persecute the Marxists in their countries. “If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines,” including internationalism, feminism, and egalitarianism, “we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media.”
Voicing the concerns of anti-intellectual right-wing populism, Breivik decries the supposed hegemony of postmodernism, postcolonial theory, critical theory, gender studies, and post-Structuralism at European universities, and deprecates the works of a series of seminal thinkers, including Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, Georg Luka´cs, Michel Foucault, Edward Said, and Jacques Derrida. To Breivik, and those whose works he cites, there are absolute Truths, a real reality, built on the facts of nature and approachable by the common sense of the common man, which has been obscured by the “intellectual systems” of the philosophers that are built on “ideology,” and “all ideologies are wrong.”
To protect their distorted theories and privileged positions, the intellectuals need to ban the truths of real reality, e.g., that cultures by nature are unequal, that the gendered roles of men and women reflect their essentially distinct natures, and that homosexuality is morally wrong. The primary tool developed to repress real reality is “political correctness,” an alleged disciplinary instrument by which “the intellectuals” are said to have secured that everyone who aspires to a position at the universities or in the media understands that they must suppress that which is factually correct in favor of only stating that which confirms to “ideology,” i.e., that which is politically correct.
According to Breivik, it all began with the effort of the Frankfurt School to challenge traditional order in a quest for social justice and equality. He states:
As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Many believed that oppressed Muslims, nonEuropean minorities and others like Feminists and Homosexuals could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in Europe.
The proponents of egalitarianism altered the curriculum at the universities to relativize Western tradition, allowing students to study Marxist revolutionaries from Latin America or Chinese philosophy as easily as they could study Plato, Shakespeare, and Newton. With their hegemony at the universities secured, the cultural Marxists allegedly proceeded by systematically ridiculing, silencing, and persecuting conservative scholars who dared insist on the value of traditional learning, absolute truths, the Western literary canon, and Eurocentric history. The quiet revolution of cultural relativism with its celebration of human diversity and tolerance paved the way for the ideology of multiculturalism. However, “multiculturalism has never been about tolerance,” but a “hate ideology which was created to destroy our European cultures, national cohesion and Christendom (in other words Western civilisation itself).” Multiculturalism devalues European achievements, e.g., by denying the benefits of the colonial expansion, and, conversely, glorifies the achievements of cultural others while blaming the West for their shortcomings. According to Breivik and those he quotes, Islam has long enjoyed an especially protected status. “Europe has its own full-fledged brand of Negationism: a movement to deny the large-scale and long-term crimes against humanity committed by Islam. This movement is led by Islamic apologists and Marxist academics and followed by all the politicians, journalists and intellectuals.” Multiculturalism thus became the “soiled garden” in which Islam grew. In fact, “multiculturalism is the tool by which Islam gains access to our countries for the purpose of the destruction of the host culture.”
Cultural Marxism, with its “evil twin sisters” liberalism and multiculturalism, “works by creating ‘victim groups’ who are used to destroy Western society by inverting morality and demanding more and more from society to compensate for their unjust oppression.” Inferior people are led to believe they are “victims,” whose experiences of “‘injustice’ and ‘unequal status’ is morally wrong and that the strong oppressors—the white race—must be made to pay for their immoral, unfair superiority.”
By installing in Europeans a sense of self-hatred and shame of their own culture, cultural Marxism has undermined their collective will to self-perseverance. “Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture.” To Breivik, the main reason for the alleged lack of European self-esteem and cultural pride “is the absence of nationalism=nationalist monocultural political doctrines” in postwar Europe. Since Hitler’s defeat, Breivik claims, antinationalist campaigns have branded every nationalist doctrine as bigoted intolerance. However, “defending your nation from cultural and literal annihilation is not ‘intolerance’ it is the height of patriotism and rationality.” Failing to reignite a movement of national resistance will, Breivik asserts, be fatal as we are now entering the “fourth” world war.
To achieve a nationalist revolution by democratic means only is futile. Democracy “worked to some extent as long as there was a sense of being a demos, a people with a shared identity and common interest,” Breivik writes, citing Fjordman. With a multicultural constituency, democracy will be detrimental. Even the citizens who still identify with their nation “keep electing people who betray their trust.” Obviously to Breivik (and Fjordman, whom he quotes), democracy “functions so poorly that it threatens our very survival. Perhaps in order to ensure our continued existence, we need to supplement democracy with other tools in our toolkit.” Of course, to Breivik, one of these tools is lethal force:
If we had executed let’s say, 100,000 Marxist intellectuals in Western Europe after WW2 and banned all form of Marxist doctrine we could have prevented the creation of the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism. It’s absolutely essential that we, the cultural conservative patriots of Europe do not repeat this mistake again. All our efforts must be to target and execute the multiculturalists wherever we find them.
Antifeminism is an ideology, theory, or perspective whose proponents rally against certain perspectives, theories, or ideologies they define as “feminist.” In line with most anti-isms, (e.g., antiracism, and anticapitalism), antifeminists attack an ideology or social order they consider oppressive, which allows the supporters of the anti-ism to position themselves as emancipatory. Antifeminists must therefore elevate the feminist enemy to a hegemonic position, and either present themselves as the champions of true freedom and equality (which is difficult, but typical to the so-called “equalists” in Scandinavia, a men’s empowerment movement claiming that men are oppressed by women) or adopt a conservative position by asserting to be the voice of Nature and Tradition. Antifeminism proceeds from an essentialist notion of gender, according to which the sexes are products of God and=or Nature, i.e., that men and women are ontologically distinct: men “are” in certain ways, women in other predetermined manners. The gendered order of nature is held to be complementary, and social harmony is assumed to rest on the maintenance of the equilibrium given by God or biology. In theory, the gendered order need not be hierarchical, although social systems based on the principle of “separate but equal” tend to be unequal in practice.
Antifeminism is historically rooted in the reactionary response to the early feminist movement’s struggle for universal suffrage. Although antisuffragettes could also be found among socialists and anarchists—who did not oppose women’s suffrage on the grounds that women were not equal to it, but because fundamental change required revolution—antisuffragettes were generally associated with a conservative perspective, portraying suffragettes as rabid man-haters who made everyone miserable by feminizing men and masculinizing women and confusing children. Essentialized gender was fundamental to the fascist projects of the 1900s, with its idealization of male virility and female fertility as a prerequisite for national rebirth, though we also find a tension between a more bourgeois law-and-order Nazism stressing the hardworking yeoman, his caring wife and orderly children, and a more berserker oriented Nazism with its homo-social cult of the male warrior band—a tension that would resurface in Breivik’s worldview.
To Breivik, feminism plays the lead character in a dystopian tract about the demise of the West. It all began with the suffragette movement, with its agenda of social reform and women’s emancipation, which initiated a process of decline: the fatal feminization of European culture. The seeds of corruption were cleansed in the fires of the two world wars, and the immediate postwar period saw a return to traditional patriarchal order.
Born in 1979, Breivik nostalgically envisioned an imaginary world of the 1950s, when men were men, women were housewives, children were well behaved, and when there was neither criminality nor Muslims in Western countries. He writes:
Our homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. ...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.
This pastoral idyll was ruined by the second surge of feminism, which in the 1960s and 1970s arose to invert everything normal. “The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally ‘normal.”’ In effect, feminists turned society against nature. “Nature has evolved the sexes for different tasks that ensure human survival just as nature does with all species. All men are not equal, all women are not equal and the sexes are not and never can be equal.”
Feminists, Breivik argues, caused European women to neglect their reproductive and domestic duties to the point that the “indigenous people” now stand at the brink of extinction. Feminists favor multiculturalism, care for refugees, the poor and disabled, and have feminized Western men who know how to change diapers but have lost their ability to fight. “The ‘man of today’ is expected to be a touchyfeely subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda,” Breivik claims, warning that “the feminisation of European culture is nearly completed. And the last bastion of male domination, the police force and the military, is under assault.”
This greatly facilitates the Muslim effort to Islamize Europe. “What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them? Perhaps women can succeed in turning their men into doormats, but it will be at the cost of doing so to their nation and to their civilisation as well.” Without their protectors, Western women will be easy prey to the warring Muslim hordes. Then, they will learn the difference between real and imagined oppression. Maybe, Breivik muses through the writings of Danish anti-Muslim author Lars Hedegaard, this is what women really want as they by nature feel attracted to subservience, subjugation, and submission. Or, could it, Breivik continues, be that feminists are simply “testing men to find out which men are strong enough to stand up to their demands, and thus which men can stand up to other men on their behalf?”
Breivik sees himself as a heroic knight, but is distressed with the fact that so few women want to be rescued. “Approximately 70% of European males support our cause while only 30% of European women do. As a consequence, when this is all over we must significantly reduce these women’s influence on political issues,” Breivik argues. “This is perhaps the most important lesson we must learn, the betrayal by so many of our own women. It is not really a betrayal as a majority of our women only thinks and acts in accordance with how nature created them—in a suicidal compassionate manner.” Breivik acknowledges that he might sound sexist, “but nature itself is sexist and you cannot defy primary natural laws.” The laws of nature are grim, and so are the laws of war. “Every female traitor or system protector out there is someone’s daughter, someone’s sister or mother,” Breivik observes. But as “approximately 60–70% of all cultural Marxists or suicidal humanists are female,” we “must embrace...the concept of killing women, even very attractive women.”
When the cultural conservative nationalists eventually have secured military and political control and executed or expelled all traitors and cultural others, patriarchy will be restored as the cornerstone of the New Order. “As soon as women once again will be conditioned through just institutions and are raised in a strong and unified nuclear family lead by a confident patriarch she will know her place in society and further regulations will be unnecessary.” To achieve this end, a few strategic laws need to be implemented: the father will be guaranteed custody of the child, no-fault divorce will be banned, and disciplinary violence legalized. This will allow the return to traditional family values, in which,
[m]ales learn to be assertive, aggressive, and dominant while females learn to be docile, gentle, and passive. They learn that men are expected to be tough, courageous, and rational while women are expected to be tender, timid, and emotional. They learn that men are the power holders while women are expected to be submissive, that men make the decisions while women are expected to comply.
White Power Thought
Basically formed by a merger of two race-centred ideologies that lost their hegemonic aspirations, (American) white supremacy and (European) National Socialism, the White Power milieu took shape in the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s to become a transatlantic scene during the 1990s, not least due to the rise of White Noise, i.e., the White Power music industry (known through, but not limited to racist Skinhead culture), and the Internet revolution of communication and information. At its heart, invoking the concept of White Power involves a notion of powerlessness, of whites having been deprived of their exalted position conceived of as their birthright privileges, and a determination to engage the “traitors” that are said to occupy the governments in the “once white world” in a white racist war of resistance to secure the survival of the white race and, eventually, to either regain White Power in the countries believed to be “theirs” or establish an independent white racial homeland of their own.
Breivik is well versed in White Power literature, its history, music, and heroes. He addressed the milieu’s internal factions and schisms, communicated with White Power activists, and joined White Power forums (e.g., Stormfront) under various online pseudonyms, including Sigurd Jorsalfare. He enjoyed William Pierce’s race war novels Turner Diaries and Hunter, and listed Saga, the Swedish white pride singer, as his favourite musician. He recounted the accomplishments and setbacks of the legendary Aryan guerrilla group Bru¨ders Schweigen (the Order), subscribed to the Leaderless Resistance tactics of the Aryan underground, and made repeated efforts to reconcile the differences between racist pagans (whom he calls Odinists as White Power activists would) and racist Christians. Yet, Breivik is at pains to conform to the Counter Jihadist standard of taking (at least publicly) exception to (biological) racism, National Socialism, and Anti-Semitism. However, Breivik’s compendium and court testimony reveals that he remains heavily influenced by White Power thought.
On the race issue, Breivik is ambivalent. Suggesting that six decades of multiculturalist propaganda have made most Europeans inclined to reject racist doctrine as scientifically flawed and morally wrong, Breivik urges his fellow patriots to “avoid talking about race.” The war against Islam “is a cultural war, not a race war! If you do believe it is a race war, then keep it to yourself as it is un-doubtfully counterproductive to flag those views.” Yet, Breivik found the fine line hard to follow. “At first, I hesitated to include anything including the word race, white or ethnicity as I convinced myself originally that I was first and foremost against Islam.” Hence, “I attempted to replace the term [race] with more compromising expressions: the words culture, native European or ethnic group.” However, he found that in many cases, it was “simply impossible to replace the term with less ‘offensive’ words.” Besides, he had grown “tired of ideological censorship” and therefore decided to include long excerpts from the British National Party publication From Titans to Lemmings: The Suicide of the White Race that sees inequalities between the races, cultures, and sexes as a reflection of the natural order.
Key to White Power thought is the conviction that there is a conspiracy to exterminate the White race. Adjusting the theory to fit his Scandinavian context by focusing on the traitors’ alleged effort to wipe out the Nordic race, Breivik says that he first hesitated to bring up eugenics because of its disrepute since the fall of National Socialist Germany. However, as “the Nordic genotypes will be extinct completely within 200 years,” he urges his readers to “get over this taboo.” Referring to Madison Grant’s classic The Passing of the Great Race, Breivik claims that the “Germanic=Nordic race...will be diluted or annihilated to such a degree that there will be no one left with Nordic physical characteristics; blond hair, blue eyes, high forehead, sturdy cheekbones.” Hence, “the Nordic tribes will become extinct if we do not resist and seize political and military control of our countries.” To prevent the “ongoing genocide” of the Nordic folk, Breivik suggests three possible programs:
a) “negative eugenics programs combined with ethnic segregation somewhat similar to some policies of the Third Reich”; b) “repro-genetics programs” working with “indigenous genotypes from pure sources (non-diluted Nordic genotypes) found in Northern Sweden and other areas where this is available”; 3) “large scale surrogacy facilities” where the “eggs and sperm will exclusively carry the Nordic genotypes.” Most importantly, immigration and interracial marriage must be banned. To secure Europe’s economy and a comfortable living standard for its white Christian citizens, Breivik finds it “logical to use cheap foreign labour,” especially within construction and agriculture, and to create a “servant class” of cleaners, gardeners, and drivers. These guest-workers will be given short-term contracts of 6–12 months, they should work 12 hours a day, be offered competitive wages (compared to their country of origin), and live in segregated communities in predefined areas of each major city. This, Breivik reasons, will allow for a flexibility to accommodate the booms and recessions of the markets. “It will allow us to become the economical powerhouse of the world and the beacon of light for all humanity”.
National Socialism and Anti-Semitism
On these issues, Breivik’s break with White Power thought is at first glance more definite, as he seeks to distance himself from National Socialism and Anti-Semitism, and claims to be devoutly pro-(rightwing) Israeli. However, the underlying rationale is clearly pragmatic and his worldview reveals strong Anti-Semitic dimensions. Addressing the National Socialist current within the White Power scene, Breivik urges its stalwarts to realize that “National Socialism was designed for Germany after WW1 and addressed the concerns and needs of the time.” However, today “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.” Compared with 25 million Muslims in Europe, Breivik finds the Jewish presence miniscule, which is why he advises white power activists to put their dated Jew-hatred to the side and join the new Crusade against Muslims. After all, the new anti-Muslim and the old National Socialist far right “share the same anti-EU, -UN and -immigration=multiculturalism (Muslim immigration at least) sentiments and the goal of preserving European traditions.” Addressing the remnants of Nazi groups out there, Breivik urges them to “conform and join our armed struggle against the European cultural Marxists=multiculturalists (the enablers of the Islamisation of Europe), or continue to be sidelined and marginalized.” “The cultural conservatives of Western Europe will seize power by 2080, if you want to be a part of this you will have no choice but to compromise.”
Breivik holds the Israeli right wing a natural ally in the struggle against Islam, and offers the assistance of the new Crusaders in deporting all Muslims from the Holy Land, demolishing the al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock, and rebuilding the Temple of Solomon, after which Jerusalem “once again” will be jointly administrated by Christians and Jews. However, Breivik’s professed sympathy with the Jewish people comes with exacting qualifications. Recognizing that many cultural Marxists and feminists are Jewish—all of whom will be executed in due time— Breivik holds it imperative for the European Jewish community to join the far right’s anti-Muslim effort. “Neutrality on this issue is not an option.” Thus, Breivik is pro-Jewish on the condition that Jews abide with his political agenda and abstain from being liberal, socialist, or apolitical. Similarly, he is pro-Israeli on the condition that Israeli Jews behave in accord with his plans for ethnic cleansing and military confrontation. Now, conditional support for Jewish people may easily transform into Anti-Semitism should Jews refuse to behave according to the manuscript of their gentile supporters as, for instance, when the pro-Zionist British-Israelite movement transformed into the virulent Anti-Semitic Christian Identity milieu. Good Jews, Breivik holds, should ideally be in Israel and engage in Israel’s expansion at the expense of Palestinian Muslims. Jews who insist on remaining in Europe may be accepted to the extent that they support the anti-Muslim crusade. When the new reconquista is eventually completed, there really is no excuse for Jews to loiter around in what will be a strictly monocultural Europe, in which Christianity will be the only religion permitted.
Breivik’s call for a decentralized armed “resistance” rests on his adoption of two groundbreaking conclusions drawn by activists in the U.S. White Power milieu. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, American white racist champions Louis Beam, David Lane, Robert Matthews, Joseph Tommassi, Robert Miles, Ben Klassen, and William Pierce began to realize that the battle for constitutional power was lost. In their view, a cabal of racial enemies, often—though not exclusively—thought of as ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government], clandestinely had secured control of Capitol Hill to deprive white Americans of their birthright privileges. Confronting an enemy in control of federal resources, white resistance could not only rely on member-based organizations that would 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 autonomous cells and lone wolf assassins who acted on their own. In his influential 1992 essay Leaderless Resistance, Beam argues that the traditional pyramid organizational structure is “not only useless, but extremely dangerous for the participants when it is utilized in a resistance movement,” as they are “easy prey for government infiltration, entrapment and destruction.” Instead, Beam detailed a “phantom cell” mode of organization in which “all individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or a single leader for direction and instruction.” Substituting unity of organization for unity of purpose, participant revolutionaries should acquire appropriate military skills and take action when needed. Overt organs of information should keep participants informed of events, enabling them to act without receiving orders. Such tactics, Beam laid down, would pose “an intelligence nightmare.” By the end of the decade, the FBI assessed that the “overwhelming majority of [right-wing] extremist groups” had “adopted a fragmented, leaderless structure where individuals or small groups act with autonomy,” which meant that they were “extremely difficult to identify.”
By then, the U.S. had seen a series of right-wing assaults against individuals, banks, government facilities, abortion clinics, and infrastructure, perpetuated by autonomous cells of self-proclaimed patriots or lone wolf assassins, including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that Breivik sought to emulate. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security assessed that “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent right-wing extremist ideology” remained “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat.”
In the 1990s, the leaderless resistance strategy crossed the Atlantic to inform the European white racist scene, where it inspired (among others) the Laser Man (John Ausonius), the racist serial killer and bank robber who haunted Stockholm in the early 1990s, his admirer Laser Man 2 (Peter Mangs), who in 2012 stood trial for a series of three murders and fifteen shootings of mainly Muslim immigrants in Malmoe between 2003 and 2010, and the Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund, an autonomous cell of three who murdered a series of nine, mainly Turkish immigrants and a policewoman between 2000 and 2006, and wounded 22 in a bomb attack against a Turkish business district in Cologne—all of whom Breivik would refer to in court as “national heroes” and “perfect Knights” who “sacrificed their lives” for the “conservative, anti-communist and anti-Islamic revolution. To secure national rebirth, Europe needs more great heroes such as these.”
In his compendium, Breivik embraces the leaderless resistance strategy. He warns his readers away from repeating the mistake of the Bru¨ders Schweigen that rapidly expanded to encompass some hundred members who remained connected—which left it vulnerable and possible to round up—when ideally they should have divided into 50–100 cells that cut contact with each other. A decentralized structure of autonomous cells is “virtually immune to detection, penetration and decapitation.” It should not be organized as a fixed and thereby fragile hierarchy but as “an extremely distributed movement, a resilient network made up of small, autonomous groups or cells,” each group “lead by a cell commander, often working solo.” Autonomous solo cells “allow the individual to stay hidden until he is ready to activate himself.” Even then, Breivik adds with reference to the police practice of racial profiling, he would likely “escape the scrutiny often reserved for young men of Arab descent.” Breivik emphasizes that resistance fighters should abstain from being affiliated with extremist networks or right-wing movements, in order to escape the intelligence radar and to avoid endangering public right-wing leaders, which is why he left the populist Norwegian Progress Party when he decided to go underground.
Breivik’s Knights Templar is not an organization in conventional terms but a “decentralised platform with self-organising features.” “Any individual who decides he wants to choose the road of the [Knights Templar], a road of strength and honour, courage and martyrdom, should leave any other organisation for practical reasons (first and foremost in order to protect them). He will then spend a predefined time preparing himself mentally...as well as for planning the actual operation (planning, financing and eventually execution of the plan).”
In Breivik’s imagination, the Lone Knight becomes,
...part of an indestructible network of cells, spread all around Europe that functions without a central command. No dormant cell can remain inactive waiting for orders from above. Your obligation as a Justiciar Knight=a cell commander is to act on your own initiative. Any single patriot who wants to establish a cell and begin action can do so, and thus becomes a part of the organisation.
Breivik informs his readers that “brutal and breathtaking operations,” ideally using “weapons of mass destruction,” need to be employed. Spectacular attacks against traitors and Muslim communities will increase polarization and eventually escalate to an all-consuming civil war from which purified New Europe will rise in all its glory. “Innocent people will die, in the thousands,” but “the needs of the many will always surpass the needs of the few.” To assist the volunteer crusaders he hopes to inspire, Breivik provides practical advice on how to get arms, produce chemical weapons, and build bombs downloaded from various Do-it-yourself sites at the Internet, such as Douchermann’s Chemistry Page, and forwards notes on physical training from Bodybuilding.com and similar forums.
Right-Wing Christian Theology
Breivik claims to be “100% Christian,” while not “excessively religious,” and put more emphasis on Europe’s Christian heritage than a personal relation with God. A Lutheran by birth, Breivik decries the Protestant Church of Norway as part of the problem, a leftist abomination that “defends and encourages the ordination of women, divorce, abortion, the mass scale distribution of contraceptive pills and contributes to glorify homosexuality (including the ordination of homosexuals),” “ignoring chastity, ignoring people’s duties in relation to procreation, [supporting] mass-Muslim immigration and even the inter-religious dialogue with the Muslim community.”
Searching for an alternative, Breivik looked across the Atlantic to American right-wing preachers Michael Bradley, founder of the evangelical Bible-Knowledge Ministries, and Joseph Francis Farah, author of the Tea Party Manifesto, and editor-in-chief of the conspiracy peddling World Daily Net that Breivik frequented, both of whom are popular among Militia members, the Patriot movement, and Tea Party activists. “God is telling you that He does not want you to be a wimp,” Breivik states, “and He is expecting each and every one of us to learn how to war against any enemy or challenge that could come our way operating under His authority, power and anointing to be able to do so. This is why we are all called to be soldiers of Jesus Christ.” Citing Biblical battle verses compiled by Bradley and Farah, Breivik urges his readers to obey the command in Luke 22:36 to arm themselves for battle: “And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” “Clearly,” Breivik writes, citing Farah, “this is not a pacifist God we serve. It’s God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight.” Eventually, each Christian needs to reach a decision. “You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keep your head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours.”
Breivik urges the protestant nations of Europe to revert to their Catholic roots. Ideally, Europe should have a united Church under the stern leadership of a “Crusader Pope” capable of restoring Christian Tradition, and commanding the political and military leaders to embark on a crusade to rid Europe from the enemies of God. Built on the Rock of Christian tradition, the new Europe will be one hundred percent Christian, but “embracing Christendom will be voluntary (under normal circumstances). People who chose to be atheists will enjoy the same rights,” provided that they are atheists in the right way, i.e., culturally Christian. When victory is secured, a Christian Congress will summon Europe’s military, political, and Church leaders to establish the constitution of Christian Europe. The Church will be granted “public monopoly” to ensure that schools and government policies will propagate cultural conservative values, “much like European policies 40–60 years ago,” and Christianity will be the only legally recognized religion in Europe.
The Knights Templar Tradition
“Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart,” Breivik summons his readers, using the words of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), the French Cistercian abbot who secured the Church’s public confirmation of the Knights Templar at the Council of Troyes around 1129. “What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr!” Breivik claims to be part of a restored order of the Knights Templar. The cover of 2083 sports the red Templar Cross and the inscription A Laude Novae Militiae. Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici. The first sentence (In Praise of the New Knighthood) refers to the title of St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s exhortation of the Knights Templar, and the latter is the full name of the historical order: the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon. Breivik is not the first to talk about restoring the Knights Templar. The mysteries of the chivalric order and the quest for the Holy Grail has been an important element of the Western esoteric tradition since the late 17th and early18th century, and with Sir Walter Scott’s epic Ivanhoe the Knights Templar rode into popular imagination. The early 19th century saw the emergence of a series of “revived” Templar orders, typically as part of the temperance movement and frequently Masonic in orientation. Knights Templar Orders of today tend to be populated by distinguished gentlemen, many of whom were appalled when Breivik committed his terrorist attacks in their name. “Breivik is not and has never been a member of the Knights Templar,” declared Robert C. Disney, Grand Commander of Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH). “We are not modern day ‘Crusaders.’ We express our Christian faith through our good works,” OSMTH announced in an open message, “in partnership with and for the benefit of all peoples regardless of faith, creed or ethnic background.”
Beyond the confines of the bourgeois literati, the Knights Templar has long caught the imagination of white supremacists and esoteric national socialists. National romantic Anglo-Saxon notions spun around the Knights Templar inspired the Christian knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and the German Vo¨lkish-milieu saw the emergence of esoteric Aryan secret societies, such as Ordo Novi Templi, founded in 1907 by Jo¨rg Lanz von Liebenfels, whose Ariosophy (the Gnosis of Aryan divinity) would be carried forth in the Third Reich through SS-Reichfu¨hrer Heinrich Himmler whose SS was modeled in part on the (imagined Aryan) Knights Templar. That romanticized notions of the medieval Knights Templar heroic adventures would feed the warrior dreams of today’s anti-Muslim Christian soldiers is hardly surprising. Predating Breivik’s compendium, the propaganda videos, web pages, and posters produced by the English Defence League made ample use of Knights Templar and Crusader imagery. 2083 is dotted with illustrations of knights in shining armour, swords in hand, riding, fighting, bursting forth, humbly kneeling, martyring.
Breivik gives detailed information about his Knights Templar: its ranks, titles, military mission, oaths, initiation rites, ceremonies, heraldry, uniforms, insignia, ornamental cords, medallions, badges, weaponry, military training, burial ceremonies, and honorary tombstones of the fallen martyrs. Adorned with a sculpture of a knight’s armour, the tombstone will be decorated with the words, Born into Marxist slavery on [date]. Died as a martyr fighting for the freedom of his people and the sovereignty of his fatherland [date]. Never Surrender! In Hoc Signo Vinces. The military motto of the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine, the phrase In Hoc Signo Vinces (In this sign you will conquer) was used by the original Knights Templar, King Felipe III of Spain (who expelled the Moriscos from the Peninsula), and John III Sobieski, the Polish king who defeated the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Today, the motto is popular among Masons and Templars, as well as among fascist and National Socialist movements. In Hoc Signo Vinces was the title of George Lincoln Rockwell’s most important essay, it features in White Noise music, on NS Skinhead tattoos, and is the motto of the English Defence League and the Norwegian Defence League, that greatly inspired Breivik.
Much like the Ancient Order of the Templar Knights, an anti-Muslim and anti-communist order led by Paul Ray—one of the original founders of English Defence League who lost the internal power struggle to EDL’s e´minence grise Alan Lake and frontman Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and went into exile in Malta—Breivik’s Knights Templar is not an organization but an idea; a vision that mobilizes Knights Templar symbolism and iconography to create the mood, setting, and direction desired. For the same reason, the compendium frequently refers to Charles Martel, the Frankish Prince who defeated the Iberian Moors at the battle of Poitiers in 732, and John III Sobieski.
The message is clear: once again, Christian Europe faces its transhistorical arch-enemy and desperately needs to rekindle the dormant warrior instincts inherent in the white Christian male to produce heroes of the same caliber in order to defeat the Muslim invasion. One of the military medals a distinguished Knights Templar engaged in liberating Europe from Marxists and Muslims may be awarded is the Legacy of Charles Martel & John III Sobieski Medal—that Breivik sported on one of the promo-photos at the end of the compendium. During the trial against Breivik, the prosecution frequently sought to “expose” the fictional character of Breivik’s Knights Templar. Similarly, forensic psychiatrists Husby and Sørheim interpreted the fact that Breivik claimed to be a commander of an order that did not exist as evidence of his mental insanity. Both parties missed the point completely. Breivik’s account of the Knights Templar should not be seen as a description of a preexisting military organization but as a performative narrative, a proposition designed to create that which it refers to: a vanguard of heroic crusaders paving the way for a nationalist revolution.
Breivik grew up with his mother in Skøyen, an upscale district in Oslo West. His father was a diplomat stationed in London and Paris, and his stepfather a military officer. Breivik went to the same primary school as did the royal children, continued to a prestigious undergraduate school of economics, and claims to have made a fortune on the stock market. As a white, Christian, heterosexual, middleclass male, Breivik claims that his birthright privileges are threatened by the multiculturalist regime that favors all sorts of minorities, an allegation exemplified in his court testimony by recalling petty squabbles with immigrant youths and a story about a family of asylum seekers that acquired an apartment in the building where he lived through public assistance. That made him angry.
In the echo chambers of the xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and far-right Internet forums, Breivik encountered other angry voices who vetted their frustrations with the general decay of the declining Western world and the betrayal of the political and economical elites. To Breivik, the primary foe is the inner enemy—the cultural Marxists, multiculturalists, and feminists—who seek to deconstruct the nation, patriarchy, and Western civilization in support of the politically correct doctrine of equality that will destroy Christian Europe and open the continent to Muslim colonization. The “Islamisation of Europe,” Breivik emphasizes, is merely a “secondary infection.” Thanks to the inner enemy’s effort to de-Christianize Europe and feminize the Western male, “Western Europe has grown weak and decadent and will be completely annihilated culturally unless we succeed to implement a second European renaissance and reverse the damage done.”
The idea of a rapidly approaching civil war that will engulf the Western world permeates Breivik’s compendium. “Given the European Union’s borderless nature,” Breivik writes citing Fjordman, “it is unlikely that war will be limited to one nation only. This will create a domino effect, and Muslims will be expelled from Europe yet again, after major bloodshed and millions of dead across the continent.” The desire is obvious: through the cleansing fire of devastating war, a New Europe will be born. Breivik, again citing Fjordman: “By quite literally putting a dagger at Europe’s throat, the Islamic world will force Europeans to renew themselves or die. Europe will go through a turbulent period of painful, but necessary revival,
and will arrive chastened on the other side.”
The yearning for a national rebirth is at the heart of Breivik’s vision. Spirited by romantic warrior ideals of heroism, bravery, honor, and glory, he desires a revolutionary nationalist showdown with the idea of equality in favor of a social order built on what he thinks of as nature’s eternal principle of hierarchy, in which the strong rules the weak, white rules black, male rules female, and rich rules poor. He seeks the restoration of a monocultural, moral conservative, and patriarchal Europe that, cleansed from the corrupting influence of its internal and external enemies, will rise anew to reclaim its (by God and Nature) given position as the world’s leading civilization.
Obviously, this vision did not originate with Breivik, but represents a 21st-century reflection of the fascist legacy, a fact he emphasized by founding a Fascist Party behind bars, throwing right-wing salutes in court and by inscribing himself in the history of violent right-wing “resistance” in postwar Norway. “Right-wing activists have systematically used violence,” Breivik said. “There have been so many cases. I would like to recount some of these, as many seemed surprised to learn that it was not Islamists who carried out 22=7.” Breivik proceeded by listing a series of forty attacks, including seven murders, fifteen arsons, and five bomb attacks against Blitz (an Antifa collective), a May first rally, a leftist bookstore, a mosque, an Islamic center, a Kurdish family home, assassinations of an African, a Somali, a Moroccan, an Indian. “Should I have included death threats and assaults, it would be more than a thousand incidents,” Breivik said. “Although some of these attacks have been pathetic or modest in scale, I regard the assailants as heroes. They have sacrificed their lives [for the Cause]” and bear witness of an unbroken right-wing “tradition to use violence to change the system,” actions that “motivate people to carry on the fight.” To Breivik, July 22 was meant to be “inspirational,” an effort to set a new precedent for others to follow: “I have committed the most sophisticated, spectacular, and brutal political assault perpetuated by a militant nationalist in Europe since the end of the Second World War.” Yet, to Breivik the carnage was not enough. “Had I known that the Labour Party would not change its ideology after 22=7, I would have detonated a poor-man’s atom-bomb,” i.e., a gas truck with propane. “Had I detonated it at the May 1 rally...up to 10,000 Marxists would have died, i.e., a huge part of the multiculturalist elite in Norway. Unfortunately, I was naı¨ve in thinking a small action would do, a mistake that all militant nationalists should learn from.”
 Pelle Tagesson and Andreas Victorzon, “Terrorda˚den i Norge. Na¨ra bli Skjuten” [The Terror Attacks in Norway. Nearly Shot], Aftonbladet, July 28, 2011.
 The one exception is the 1973 murder of a Moroccan immigrant whom Israeli agentsmistook for a Palestinian militant who had been involved with the Black September (Muna amat Aylu¯l al-aswad) group that was responsible for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Max Webster, Inside Israel’s Mossad: The Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks (New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2003), 50.
 Ranstorp, quoted in Siv Sandvik and Oddvin Aune, “Terrorekspert Tror Al-QaidaSta˚r Bak” [Terrorist Expert Thinks al-Qaida Did It], NRK, July 23, 2011, http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7723020.
 Lura˚s, in Sandvik and Aune (see note 3 above).
 Jennifer Rubin, “Norway Bombing,” Washington Post, July 22, 2011.
 Barack Obama, “Our Hearts Go Out to the People of Norway,” President’s Statement, July 22, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/22/president-obamaour-hearts-go-out-people-norway.
 “Oslo: Island shooting death toll over 80 as David Cameron expresses outrage atNorway attacks,” Mirror.co.uk, July 23, 2011, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/ 2011/07/23/oslo-island-shooting-death-toll-over-80-as-david-cameron-expresses-outrage-atnorway-attacks-115875-23290846/.
 Founded in 1988 by neo-Nazi activists from Nordiska Rikspartiet [Nordic ReichParty], Bevara Sverige Svenskt [Keep Sweden Swedish], and Sverigepartiet [Sweden Party], the ultranationalist Sweden Democrats has over the years sought to remake its image into a social conservative, EU-sceptic nationalist party by (not always that successfully) distancing itself from National Socialism and Anti-Semitism, focusing more on “culture” than biological “race,” and criticising “multiculturalism,” “political correctness,” “mass immigration,” Islam, and Muslims as detrimental to society. In 2010, the Sweden Democrats became the first “brown” party ever elected to Sweden’s parliament with 5.7 percent of the vote.
 Niklas Svensson, “SD Gjorde Bort Sig pa˚ Twitter om Terrorspekulationer,” Expressen, July 23, 2011, http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2507610/sd-gjorde-bort-sig-pa-twitterom-terrorspekulationer.
 Ulf A[˚] sga˚rd, “En Person Med en Sto¨rning” [A Deranged Person], Aftonbladet, July 24, 2011.
 Ulf A[˚] sga˚rd, “Breivik Lider Med Stor Sannolikhet av en Rad Personlighetssto¨rningar [Breivik Suffers From Personality Disorder],” SvT Rapport, July 27, 2011; cf. Ulf A[˚] sga˚rd, “Han A¨ r Sto¨rd [He’s Deranged],” Aftonbladet, July 28, 2011.
 Sten Levander, “Delade Meningar om Breiviks Psykiska Tillsta˚nd [Different Opinions on Breivik’s Mental Condition],” Dagens Eko, July 26, 2011.
 Lars Bohman, “Breivik Schizofren?” Ordinationer, July 27, 2011, http://ordinationer. wordpress.com/2011/07/27/breivik-schizofren/#comment-993.
 Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, Rettspsykiatrisk Erklæring Breivik, Anders Behring f 130279, Saksnr 11-12099ENE-OTIR08 (2012). Husby and Sørheim had worked as a team in more than fifty court assessments, and had arrived at a larger percentage paranoid schizophrenia diagnoses than any of their colleagues (Sindre Bagstad, “Norway – One Year After: An Open Wound,” OpenDemocracy, July 20, 2012, http://www.opendemocracy.net/ sindre-bangstad/norway-one-year-after-open-wound).
 Terje Tøirrissen and Agnar Aspaas, Rettspsykiatrisk Erklæring Til Oslo Tingrett, Sak nr. 11-188627MED-OTIR=05 (2012).
 For a day-to-day, verbatim account from the trial, see Rettsaken Mot Anders Behring Breivik [The Trial Against Anders Behring Breivik], http://www.nrk.no/227/.
 Breivik aimed at sending the compendium to roughly 8000 recipients, but his mailprogram had a limit of one thousand a day. Struggling with this problem delayed Breivik, which probably saved many lives that day.
 Anders Behring Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence (selfpublished, 2011), 16, 14.
 Peter Nøstvold “Fjordman” Jensen, “Native Revolt: A European Declaration ofIndependence,” Brussels Journal, March 16, 2007, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1980.
 Wayne Madsen, “Link Between Breivik and Israeli Mossad,” Wayne Madsen Report, July 24, 2011, http://www.prisonplanet.com/wayne-madsen-link-between-breivikand-israeli-mossad.html; Ofer Aderet, “Pioneer of Global Peace Studies Hints at Link Between Norway Massacre and Mossad,” Haaretz, April 30, 2012, http://www.haaretz. com/news/diplomacy-defense/pioneer-of-global-peace-studies-hints-at-link-between-norwaymassacre-and-mossad-1.427385.
 Johan Lundberg,”Bjurwald Blandar Ihop Ho¨gerkorten [Bjurwald Mix Up Rightwing Cards],” Expressen, July 25, 2011, http://www.expressen.se/debatt/1.2509234/ bjurwald-blandar-ihop-hogerkorten.
 See, for instance, Ted Ekeroth, “‘Blame Game’ Gone Wrong,” Ted Ekeroth. Stoppa Islamiseringen, July 25, 2011, http://tedekeroth.se/2011/07/25/blame-game-gone-wrong/.
 William Boston, “Killer’s Manifesto: The Politics Behind the Norway Slaughter,”Time, July 24, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084901,00.html.
 Evan F. Kohlmann, The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe, Swedish National Defence College, 2006, http://www.aina.org/reports/tabmnie.pdf, cf. Breivik, 2083 (seenote19 above), 264–282. Kohlmann haspreviously worked with StevenEmerson (who wrote the alarmist The Terrorist Among Us: Jihad in America) and at the American Enterprise Institute.
 Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), xi. 27. For a critical analysis of the concept, see Mattias Gardell, Islamfobi (Stockholm: Leopard, 2010); Christopher Allen, Islamophobia (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010); S. Sayyid and AbdoolKarim Vakil, Thinking Through Islamophobia: Global Perspectives (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 Stephen Schwartz, The Two Faces of Islam (New York: Anchor Books, 2003).
 Founded by multimillionaire Alan Lake in 2009, the EDL seeks to take its antiMuslim battle to the streets by mobilizing Casuals (football hooligan firms), skinheads, nationalist youth, and veterans from the Ulster Freedom Fighters in aggressive rallies through neighbourhoods with Muslim inhabitants in ritual demonstrations of power. EDL claims to keep Nazis at arms’ length, but undercover reporters and antiracist researchers revealed extensive cooperation with BNP and National Front organizers. Defence Leagues that despite their nationalist pathos go by English names have since been established in Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Sweden, so far without matching the success of their English model. Fjordman greeted the EDL with enthusiasm. Breivik counted 600 EDL members among his Facebook friends, participated in EDL events, and sent his compendium to 250 British recipients, most of whom were part of the EDL or the British National Party (Matthew Taylor, Guy Grandjean, Teresa Smith, and Jason Parkinson, The English Defence League Uncovered [documentary] (London: The Guardian, 2010); Paul Jackson, The EDL: Britain’s “New Far Right” Social Movement (Northampton: RNM Publications, University of Northampton, 2011); Fjordman, “The Noted Blogger Fjordman Discusses the English Defence,” EDL News, July 19, 2011, http://englishdefenceleague.org/the-noted-blogger-Fjordman-discusses-the-english-defence-league-2/.
 Edward S. May, “The UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit,” Gates of Vienna, April 14, 2007, http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.se/2007/04/uk-and-scandinaviacounterjihad-summit.html.
 Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir,Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2011).
 Robert Steinback, “The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle,” Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center), 142 (Summer 2011), http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligencereport/browse-all-issues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Hate Map,” http://splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map; “Pamela Geller,” SPLC Intelligence Files, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/ pamela-geller; “Active Anti-Muslim Groups,” SPLC Intelligence Files, http://www.splcenter. org/node/3502/activegroups. Spencer alleged that the SPLC was a Jihadist front involved in a leftist=Islamic conspiracy, and Geller suggested that SPLC wage a “Jihad against America” and should be named the “Sharia Promoting Law Center”: Robert Spencer, “SPLC Fronts for the Jihad, Smears Freedom Fighters,” Jihad Watch, June 22, 2011, http://www.jihad watch.org/2011/06/splc-fronts-for-the-jihad-smears-freedom-fighters.html; David Horowitz and Robert Spencer, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2011); Pamela Geller, “SPLC’s Jihad Against America,” Atlas Shrugs, June 22, 2011; Pamela Geller, “Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate,” Atlas Shrugs, September 28, 2012, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ atlas_shrugs/2012/09/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate.html.
 Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005); Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008); Andrew Bostom, Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012).
 International Criminal trial for the Former Yugoslavia, Case Number IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al., Transcript of hearing on September 4, 2008.
 Arjun Appadurai, Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 716. The section is taken from Fjordman, “Suggestions for the Future,” Fjordman Report, September 29, 2008, published at Gates of Vienna, http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/suggestions-for-future.html #c8772512582428522002.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 319. This section is copied from Fjordman, “The Eurabia Code–2008 Updates,” The Brussels Journal, October 13, 2008, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3590.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 49ff; 258ff; 792ff.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 300ff; 563ff.
 “Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated 1 December 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to ‘establish an Islamic government on earth’ – identified as The Project,” that has “served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood ‘master plan’ for conquest” (Breivik, 2083 [see note 19 above], 300). This is taken from Fjordman’s post “The Eurabia Code, Part 2, A Planned Sell-Out by the EU,” originally posted at The Brussels Journal, October 5, 2006, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1462. Fjordman here builds on Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’ (Continued),” FrontPage Magazine, May 11, 2006, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx? ARTID=4475, who in his turn builds on Sylvain Besson, La Conqueˆte de l’Occident, Le Projet Secret des Islamistes (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 350. This bravado too, is cut and pasted from Fjordman, “Waiting for Churchill or Godot?” FrontPage Magazine, May 29, 2007, http:// archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26756.
 Alana Lentin and Gavan Titley, The Crisis of Multiculturalism: Racism in a Neoliberal Age (London: Zed 2011).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 743.
 Ibid., 19. Section taken from William S. Lind, “What is ‘Political Correctness?,‘“ inWilliam S. Lind, ed., “Political Correctness”: A Short History of an Ideology (Washington, DC: Free Congress Foundation, 2004), 1–8.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 25. Section taken from Raymond Raehn, “The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness,” in Lind, “Political Correctness” (see note 44 above), 10–18.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 32. Here, Breivik incorporates T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.’s “Political Correctness in Higher Education,” in Lind, “Political Correctness” (see note 44 above), 19–25.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 733. Cited from Fjordman 2006, A Declaration of European Independence.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 372.
 Ibid., 52. Plagiarized from Elst Koenraad, Negationism in India–Concealing the Record of Islam (New Delhi: Voice of India, 1992), published online at http://koenraadelst. voiceofdharma.com/books/negaind/index.htm.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 409. Cited from Daniel L. Adams, “Ignorance and Multiculturalism Must be Destroyed,” ACT! Nashville, August 8, 2008, http://actwestnashville. com/?p=880.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 409. Cited in Reconquista, From Titans to Lemmings, The Suicide Of The White Race (The Green Arrow, 2009), based on a series of eight essays first published on the BNP supporting website, The Green Arrow, http://www. thegreenarrow.co.uk.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 738. Cited from Fjordman, “The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War,” April 18, 2008, http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.se/2006/ 04/fall-of-france-and-multicultural-world.html.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 744.
 Ibid., 408. Taken from Adams, “Ignorance and Multiculturalism” (see note 50 above).
 To Breivik and his cohorts, the Cold War was the third world war.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 706f. Essay by Fjordman, “Democracy Not Working—Essay by Fjordman,” Democracy Reform Blogspot, September 11, 2008, http:// democracyreform.blogspot.se/2008/09/democracy-not-working-essay-by-Fjordman.html.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 706f. Essay by Fjordman, “Democracy Not Working” (see note 56 above).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 743f.
 In his critique of feminism, Breivik returns to the writing of Fjordman and the circleof American conservatives referred to above, and refers to female conservative writers, including Christina Hoff Summers at the American Enterprise Institute, who wrote Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995) and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001); U.S. psychologist Phyllis Chesler, a frequent contributor to Front Page Magazine who in The Death of Feminism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) charges the feminist movement for having become proponents of multiculturalism and neglecting the threat of Islam; Oriana Fallaci, the Italian journalist who by the end of her career turned vociferous contributor to the Eurabia literature and wrote that “the sons of Allah breed like rats”; and Malanie Philips, an English journalist who turned from left to right with attacks against the “gay lobby’s” effort to “destroy normal sexual behaviour,” and bestselling conspiracy tale Londonistan (New York: Encounter Books, 2006) in which she holds the political elite responsible for the alleged transformation of Britain into an Islamist Terror State.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 20. This is taken verbatim from William S. Lind, Political Correctness (see note 44 above).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 24. Here, Breivik cut and pasted from Raymond V. Raehn, “The Historical Roots of ‘Political Correctness” (see note 45 above).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 400. This is copied from Reconquista, From Titans to Lemmings (see note 51 above).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 37. Here, Breivik plagiarizes Gerald L. Atkinson, “Radical Feminism and Political Correctness,” in Lind, ed., “Political Correctness” (see note 44 above), 32–41.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 353, 369, 371, 376–378.
 Ibid., 355.
 Ibid.,355.Citedin*Fjordman*,”HowFeminists’”WarAgainstBoys”PavedWayfortheIslam,” The Brussels Journal, September 4, 2006, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 356. Cited from Fjordman, “How Feminists”’ (see note 66 above).
 Ibid., 1358.
 Ibid., 942.
 Ibid., 1148.
 Ibid., 1151.
 The concept White Power was coined in 1966 by George Lincoln Rockwell, founderof the American Nazi Party and chairman of the now defunct World Union of National Socialists, as a response to Black Nationalist calls for Black Power. None of Rockwell’s organizational efforts met with any degree of success, and his importance lies rather in the legacy he bequeathed the white racist scene for which the concept of White Power became a unifying tool in the decades to come. See Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: White Separatism and the Pagan Revival (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003); Mattias Gardell, “White Racist Religions in the United States: From Christian Identity to Wolf Age Pagans,” in James R. Lewis, ed., Controversial New Religions (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 2005), 387– 421; Jeffrey Kaplan, Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2000), Frederick J. Simonelli, American Fu¨hrer: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999).
 Breivik also used Andreas Borg, Andrew Berwick, Dudley Veron, Axel Downing,and Sigurd Magnusson. For a study of his e-correspondence, see Ketil Stormark, Massemorderens Private E-Poster [The mass-murderer’s private e-mail] (Oslo: Spartacus, 2012).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 680.
 Reconquista, From Titans to Lemmings (see note 51 above); Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 398–407.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1193.
 Ibid., 1157. 78. Ibid., 1193. 79. Ibid., 1157.
 Ibid., 1195.
 Ibid., 1199, 1200.
 Ibid., 1368. 83. Ibid., 1167. 84. Ibid., 1376.
 Ibid., 1374.
 British-Israelism was a lay school of theology that identified the peoples of northernEurope with the lost tribes of Israel. Introduced in the United States in the late 19th century, British-Israelism found resonance with the Puritan legacy that identified America as the New Israel. Substituting analogywith biology, British-Israelisminsisted on a genealogical identity with theChosenPeople.LongingtobereunitedwiththeHouseofJuda,British-Israelitesweregenerally sympathetic to the early Zionist movement. However, when Israel was established and Jewish people failed to embrace the Anglo-Saxon-Nordics as fellow peopleof the covenant,Jewsbecame denounced as impostors, a demonic race, that sought to fool the world that they, and not the Aryans, were the Chosen race. In the U.S., British Israelism transformed into Christian Identity, which entered pro-National Socialist groups and Ku Klux Klan organizations. Christian Identity families may name their children Seth, Elisheba, Levi, and Rebekah, Melchizedek or Sarai and change to Israeli surnames, such as Weisman or Neuman. Many observe Sabbath, celebrate Passover and Purim, follow the dietary laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and practice male circumcision. Given the Anti-Semitic attitude typical to the White Power scene, this may be a source of confusion. Not every Aryan warrior appreciates the activities of a Mission to Israel or an Army of Israel (Michael Barkun, Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, rev. ed. 1997); Mattias Gardell, “White Racist Religions” (see note 72 above).
 Jeffrey Kaplan, “Leaderless Resistance,” Terrorism and Political Violence 9, no. 3 (1997): 80–95.
 Seminal to this development were Louis Beam, former Grand Dragon of theKnights of the Ku Klux Klan and “Ambassador” of the Aryan Nations, William Pierce, leader of National Alliance and author of white race war novels Turner Diaries and Hunter, and Odinist David Lane of Wotansvolk and Bru¨ders Schweigen (Silent Brotherhood), popularly known as the Order, an armed Aryan guerrilla operating in the Northwest in the early 1980s.
 Louis Beam, “Leaderless Resistance,” The Seditionist (1992). Beam’s essay and a number of key documents of the time are included in Kaplan, ed., Encyclopedia of White Power (see note 72 above), 503–511.
 FBI, Project Megiddo (1999), 4. The full text of Project Megiddo may be found in Jeffrey Kaplan, ed., Millennial Violence: Past, Present and Future (London and Portland: Routledge, 2002), 27–52, also published as a special issue of Terrorism and Political Violence 14, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 27–52. Cf. in the same volume Michael Barkun, “Project Megiddo, the FBI and the Academic Community,” 97–108.
 Department of Homeland Security: Rightwing Extremism, Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (Washington, D.C.: DHS, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, 2009).
 Anders Behring Breivik, Testimony in Court, 17 April 2012; Anders BehringBreivik, Manuscript, Court Speech, Oslo Tingrett, i sak TOSLO-2011-118627-24 (2012).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 845.
 Ibid., 840. 95. Ibid., 828. 96. Ibid., 832. 97. Ibid., 837.
 Ibid., 834.
 Ibid., 1361.
 Ibid., 847. In these quotes, Breivik’s inspiration from the Turner Diaries is obvious.
 Douchermann’s Chemistry and Pyrotechnics Tutorials and other information, http:// williestop.tripod.com/, http://www.survivalblog.com. In addition, Breivik includes material from National Research Council, Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings, An Integrated National Strategy for Marking, Tagging, Rendering Inert, and Licensing Explosives and Their Precursors (1998); and data from Department of Homeland Security programs, such as Denver’s Metropolitan Medical Response System.
 For example, Bodybuilding.com forums, http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archive/index.php/s=82ea9de149c5d5ae2352dddc39377ad9&api=1.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1404.
 Ibid., 1138.
 Ibid., 1222.
 Ibid., 1332. Joseph Francis Farah, “The Bible and Self-Defense,” WorldNetDaily, November 26, 2001, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442; Carol Sopring-Baker, “Battle Verses of the Bible, parts I-IV, inchristnetwork, http://inchristnetwork.com/blogs/29/1788/battle-verses-of-the-bible-part#axzz1cDQUNdxP; Mike Bradley, “Battle Verses of the Bible,” Bible-knowledge.com, http://www.bible-knowledge.com/battleverses-of-the-bible/.
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1329. Cited from Farah, “The Bible and Self-Defense” (see note 106 above).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1331. Cited from Bradley, “Battle Verses of the Bible” (see note 106 above).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1138, 1404.
 Ibid., 1140.
 Ibid., 1337.
 Michael Haag, The Templars: The History and the Myth: From Solomon’s Temple to the Freemasons (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2009); Caren Ralls, ed., Knights Templar Encyclopedia (Franklin Lake, NJ: Career Press, 2007); Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Henrik Bogdan, Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation (New York: SUNY, 2007).
 Robert Disney, cited in Anders Park Framstad and Gjermund Glesnes, “Tempelridderne Fortviler, - Breivik Er Ikke En Av Oss! [Knights Templar Despair: Breivik Not One of Us]”VerdensGang,July28,2011,http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel. php?artid=10080916.
 “International Templar Order Deplores Senseless Acts in Norway: An OpenMessage Following the Killings in Utøya, Norway,” OSMTH, July 24, 2011, http://www. osmth.org/.
 Nicolas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism (London: I.B. Taurus, 1992).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 842–918; 926–976; 1074–1123. Breivik claims that the crusading order of the Knights Templar was re-founded at a secret meeting in London in 2002 by representatives from eight European countries, that its ranks of Justiciar Knights in Western Europe was estimated to be 15–80 initiates, and hoped that it would attract some of his estimated potential of 407,120 battle-ready patriots across the continent. (Breivik [see note 19 above], 827, 842, 1258).
 Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1102.
 Full text free at http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/articles/vinces.php. Or you can pay actual money for it from Amazon.com, http://www.amazon. com/Signo-Vinces-George-Lincoln-Rockwell/dp/B0006Y0FCS.
 Ray denies having met or been in contact with Breivik, but admits that “it’s reallypointing at us. All these things he’s been talking about are linked to us”: “a lot of the things that we’re involved in and promoting are in there.” “Who else is there called ‘Lionheart’ who’s writing about anti-jihad, Muslims and Templar iconography? It blatantly looks like it’s me! He also talks about diamonds in Liberia and whatever. Meanwhile, Nick [Greger] is supporting Charles Taylor.... It looks like he’s pointing the finger at us! It’s like he’s copied us” (Simon Haydon, “AP Exclusive, ‘Knights Templar’ says no Norway tie,” Associated Press, TimesUnion, July 28, 2011, http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/AP-ExclusiveKnights-Templar-says-no-Norway-tie-1612882.php; [Downloaded July 30, link no longer active. Cf http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-knights-templar-says-no-norway-tie-223243535. html]; Ray, cited in Jamie Armstrong, “I am not Breivik’s British Mentor,” Viceland (2011), http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-ancient-order-of-the-templar-knights-anders-breivik-paulray-edl-british-mentor-lionheart.
 Magnus Ulle´n, “Utøya 2083, Terror, Performatives, and the Rhetorical Situation,” in Karen Knutsen et al., ed., Narratives of Risk (Mu¨nster: Waxmann Verlag, 2013), 339–362. 121. Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 1354.
 Fjordman, “The Second Fall of Rome,” Fjordman, November 21, 2005, http:// Fjordman.blogspot.se/2005/11/second-fall-of-rome.html, included in Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 741.
 Fjordman, “The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War,” Gates of Vienna, April 18, 2006, http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.se/2006/04/fall-of-france-and-multiculturalworld.html, cited in Breivik, 2083 (see note 19 above), 742.
 The application to register The Norwegian Fascist Party and Nordic League wasdeclined by Norwegian authorities, but the announcement resounded on far-right websites, including Nordfront, Stormfront, and the Commander Breivik Report (“Anders Behring Breivik vil Starte Norsk Fascistparti,” Aftenposten, May 10, 2013; Rebecca Haimi, “Breivik Vill Starta Fascistparti,” Dagens Nyheter, May 10, 2013; “Breivik Vill Starta Parti,” Nordfront, May 12, 2013, http://www.nordfront.se/breivik-vill-starta-parti.smr; “Breivik Establish Norwegian Fascist Party,” Stormfront, May 14, 2013, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ t966657/; “The Norwegian Fascist Party and the Nordic League,” The Commander Breivik Report, May 19, 2013, http://breivikreport.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/the-norwegianfascist-party-and-the-nordic-league/.
 Anders Behring Breivik, Testimony in court, trial date 30, June 4, 2013. Taperecorded. Oslo Tingrett, i sak TOSLO-2011-118627-24.
 Anders Behring Breivik, Testimony in court, trial date 2, April 17, 2013. Taperecorded=Original manuscript. Oslo Tingrett, i sak TOSLO-2011-118627-24.