The news media has had a field day in headlining Anders Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the “far Right,” and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik is an avid Zionist whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarian and “neo-conservative.” He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the “clash of civilizations.”
Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a “Zionist,” and as a “stanch supporter of Israel”? As is often the case, the fictional “far Right” connection is a red herring. Headlines could have read “Zionist extremist on shooting spree,” “Israel supporter massacres youngsters at Labour camp in Norway,” and the like.
While Breivik advocates banning the Islamic religion from Europe, he seems to have been totally oblivious to the intrinsically anti-Christian nature of Orthodox Judaism, and while he wrote at length on the supposed enmity between “Judaeo-Christianity” and Islam, he wrote nothing of the anti-Christian record of Israel, including the demolition of Christian holy sites, and the common practice of spitting on Christian clergy in the Holy Land. Although he did recognize the historical predominance of Jews in Leftist movements, this is an acknowledgement of the rivalry within Jewry between liberals and leftists on the one side and “neo-conservatives” on the other, the latter being considered by Breivik to be his best potential allies in the fight against Islam. Breivik is Judaeophilic to the extent that he is Islamophobic, writing in his manifesto:
Regardless of what the Jewish communities motives are I think it’s imperative that they take a stance on multiculturalism and Muslim immigration as soon as humanly possible. They have to recognize that “multiculturalism” is the system that allows Europe to be Islamised and it’s obviously not in their interest to contribute to this. Jews will in a much larger degree start to support the ‘new right’ (just like everyone else), who oppose multiculturalism as a means to stop Islamisation, at least this is my hope. In the back of their minds they realize that a Muslim Europe will be more “anti-Semitic” than a Christian Europe. Muslims don’t have the guilt complex that Europeans have. Many Jews feel they are trapped between the ‘bark and the wood’, they are both skeptical of Muslim immigration on one side and of the nationalist far right wing movements on the other side. Nevertheless, time is off [sic] the essence and it is imperative that the European Jewish community without delay take a stance on the ongoing Islamisation. Neutrality on this issue is not an option. The only way of doing this is to back the new right wing (antimulticulturalism, pro-Israel) groups and political parties (also manifested through views such as by moderate Jewish writers such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or).
Breivik’s opposition to Jewish leftists, as with his opposition to liberals and leftists of any type, is no more antagonistic towards Jews per se than the opposition of Jewish neo-cons towards Jewish leftists. The above passage from Breivik is in total accord with the pro-Zionist neo-con party-line.
Israel & Islam
The only “Right” that Breivik can be said to identify with is the Zionist extreme Right. This calls to mind the likes of the Jewish Defense League, Likud, the settler movement, etc. Breivik’s support for the expansion of Israeli borders north and south also reminds one of the “Greater Israeli Empire” that has always been a basis of the Zionist “extreme right.” He sees Israel as the vanguard in the fight against Islam, writing:
While most people refer to Israel’s security fence as a ‘wall’, the fact remains that less than 5 percent of the barrier is actually concrete slab. The rest is a network of fence and sensors. The fence has cut terrorism incidents by more than 90% since its completion. What was the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area? The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000…
His justification for the “security wall” is the same party line as that of other pro-Zionists, including the neo-con ideologues. The main difference is that Breivik is happy to call this situation ‘apartheid’, while the neo-cons recoil at the word. Was Breivik inspired in his shooting rampage of Norwegian youths more by the example of the Israeli security forces than by the crusader knights whose legacy he claimed to be reviving, albeit only with a handful of members who included two atheists and an agnostic, by his own account?
Clash of Civilizations
Breivik is a product of the “clash of civilizations,” formulated by neo-con ideologues and used by American and Zionist interests to philosophically justify the so-called “war on terrorism.” He is the product of a legacy that is anything but “conservative” in the Western historical sense: he sees himself as an underground resistance fighter against the Islamic occupation of Europe, who, in other circumstances, would be honored as a war hero. He sees Islamic laws and customs taking the place of Western laws. The attitude is no different from that of Sarkozy’s attempts to ban the Burka in public, Breivik writing:
Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO.
The Mohammed cartoon saga was symptomatic of the “clash of civilizations.” The cartoons published in Denmark were a contrived provocation against Muslims in order to create a climate of tension. It is such a strategy of tension that Breivik sought in a more dramatic way. The American neo-con magazine Human Events, which by-lines itself as ‘leading conservative media since 1944’, was among the Western media that republished the cartoons. It is of added interest in that one of those instrumental in the 2006 Muhammad cartoon provocation was Daniel Pipes, cited as one of Breivik’s ideological gurus, whom he calls a ‘moderate Jewish writer’ along with Bat Ye’or. Christopher Bollyn, writing for American Free Press, stated of this:
The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal has turned out to be a major step forward for the Zionist Neo-cons and their long-planned ‘clash of civilizations’, the artificially constructed conflict designed to put the so-called Christian West against the Islamic world.
Bollyn wrote that Flemming Rose, the “cultural editor” who commissioned the cartoons for his newspaper Jyllands‑Posten, visited the Philadelphia office of Daniel Pipe’s website Middle East Forum in 2004. “Rose then penned a sympathetic article about Pipes entitled ‘The Threat from Islamism,’ which promoted his extreme anti‑Islamic views without mentioning the fact that Pipes is a rabid Zionist extremist.” Bollyn cited references by the individual whom Breivik recommends as a “moderate Jewish writer,” Pipes having written that a “change of heart” of the Palestinians can only be achieved by their “being utterly defeated.” After three days of Muslim rioting in Denmark USA’s CNN TV network turned to Pipes as their pundit on the situation, who then blamed ‘Islamic extremists’. At the time, neo-con US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the Syrian and Iranian governments for protests in those states. Pipes appealed to Western liberal secular values in regard to the tumult that was sparked by his Danish comrade:
Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise. Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not’.
This is the Breivik line that he learned at the metamorphical knees of his neo-con and Zionist gurus. Pipes at the time cited in support another Breivik ideological hero, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, which is part of the network of neo-con luminary David Horowitz. Pipes wrote: “Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand ‘resolutely with Denmark.’ The informative Brussels Journal asserts, ‘We are all Danes now.’”’
Now Pipes states of Breivik that “authors and artists” such as himself cannot be held responsible for the actions of those they inspire and, like Robert Spencer and other neo-cons, he reiterates what seems to be their party-line on the matter by giving the example, among others, of how The Beatles’ “Helter Skelter” influenced Charles Manson. However, the connection is just not that cryptic: the neo-con coteries, including Daniel Pipes, have been promoting the “clash of civilizations” and when a foot solider goes rogue and gets out of control they protest: ‘don’t blame me.” Pipes is more than a street corner agitator. He is a visiting fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, with columns appearing in newspapers around the world. He has lectured at the US Naval War College, Harvard, and others, and appears on leading TV networks. His Middle East Forum has a budget of $4,000,000. In a 2010 interview with the Washington Post, Pipes stated that he is no longer regularly criticized as Islamophobic because of the proliferation of more extreme Islamophobes. This means that Pipes’ and others such as Spencer and Horowitz now look ‘moderate’ because of the shifting of the center of Islamicophobic gravity by years of propaganda. The interview also mentions a particularly interesting phenomenon; the support Pipes had given to the Dutch “right-wing” politician Geert Wilders who, like Breivik, wants to ban the Koran in The Netherlands. While regarding the “new crop of bloggers” as “unsophisticated”, a Washington Post interview states:
Pipes says he shares “the same enemies” with people like Wilders and the new crop of bloggers. “We’re in the same trench but we have different views of what the problem is. We both see an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West. We are both against it, and want to maintain Western civilization. But we understand the nature of the problem differently.”
Important distinction, in your eyes?
It is just this type of alliance between the neo-cons, Zionists and the European so-called ‘right-wing’ that Breivik regards as a basis for the anti-Islamic civil war he hoped to foment in Europe. It is not an isolated phenomenon. The well-publicized English Defense League’s anti-Muslim demonstrations and riots are marked by the number of Israeli flags appearing amidst their shaven headed ranks. Breivik regards the EDL as one of the better organizations, writing:
The British EDL seems to be the first youth organization that has finally understood this. Sure, in the beginning it was the occasional egg heads who shouted racist slogans and did Nazi salutes but these individuals were kicked out. An organization such as the EDL has the moral high ground and can easily justify their political standpoints as they publicly oppose racism and authoritarianism.
According to the anti-Zionist former Israeli Gilad Atzmon, the EDL has formed a “Jewish Division,” which the London Jewish Chronicle states immediately drew “hundreds” of followers. The Division is led by Roberta Moore, who was interviewed by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and boasted of how the ‘Jews were exploiting’ the EDL:
Roberta Moore, aged 39, the leader of the Jewish Division, admitted this week to Ha‘aretz that it is ‘actually the Jewish Division that exploits the EDL’. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper on 13 July 2010, she said: “They [the EDL] think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish Division. If anything, we are exploiting them.”
Of the previously mentioned Bat Ye’or, a Jewish woman of Egyptian birth, resident in Britain, she specializes in writing of Jewish experiences in Muslim states. Her theme of “Eurabia” is a condemnation of relations between Europe and the Arab states. It is a concept that was taken up by Breivik. Ye’or contends that Eurabia is a development of ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’ origins in alliance with radical Arabs, and has placed European states in a foreign policy position inimical to the interests of both Israel and the USA. In other words, it is indicative of Europe as a new force rather than as a lackey to the USA. This Eurabia was formalized in 1974 in Paris in an association called Euro-Arab Dialogue. Ye’or has outlined her views in many articles, one of which was published in the neo-con National Review. She has attracted the support of neo-cons such as Robert Spencer. From a Western cultural perspective, the concept of Eurabia so abhorred to Ye’or and other neo-cons, plutocrats and Zionists, is hopeful. The relations souring the Arab states and the West are of intrusive origins and could be addressed diplomatically. The origins of poisoned relations between the West and the Arabs will now be considered.