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,[1] 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,[2] 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).[3]

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…[4]

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.[5] 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.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8]

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’.[9]

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.’”’[10]

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.[11] 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.[12] 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?[13]

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.[14] 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.[15]

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 Haaretz 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.”[16]

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.[17] Her theme of “Eurabia” is a condemnation of relations between Europe and the Arab states.[18] 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.[19] 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.

Souring of Arab and Western Relations

Israel has existed for much of its history since 1948 by maintaining the fiction that it is the only reliable state in the Middle East that is Western-orientated amidst a sea of states hostile to “Western values.” The dichotomy is misleading. Israel was for the first years of its existence largely a center of Marxist agitation in the Middle East, and even before the declaration of Israel in 1948, Zionist settlers in Palestine were conveyers of the Marxist creed that has never found fertile ground in any form among the Arabs.[20] Israel is neither pro-Western nor anti-Western; it is pro-Israel, no more and no less. Israel has always played a duplicitous game diplomatically. For example, it has for decades maintained a largely covert relationship with Red China to the point of contravening US restrictions on weapons transfers.[21] As for the souring of relations between the West and the Arabs, this is of a particularly treacherous nature, and is a festering sore that the West has the responsibility to heal.

The origins of this perfidy are in World War I at a time when the Arabs were under Ottoman rule. Zionist hopes for gaining Palestine seemed at the time to rest with Turkey and Germany, while Arab independence rested with the vanquishing of those powers. In return for Arab support the Allies led them to believe that independent states would be granted. In 1915 Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, speaking for the Arab world, approached Sir Henry McMahon, British Commissioner in Cairo, offering support for the war against the Turks if Britain would pledge support for Arab independence. Correspondence between the two during 1915 and early 1916 culminated in McMahon’s guarantee of British support for independence within the requested boundaries.[22] However, in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between Britain and France, ‘parts’ of Palestine would be under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sheriff of Mecca.[23] This Anglo-French agreement already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sheriff Hussein, and without his knowledge. Lord Curzon remarked that the boundary lines drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement indicated “gross ignorance” and he assumed that it was never believed the agreement would be implemented. Prime Minister Lloyd George considered the Sykes-Picot agreement foolish and dishonorable, but it was nonetheless implemented after the Allied victory.[24]

In 1916 the war was going badly for the Allies, and the only hope was to persuade the USA to enter. Sykes approached the War Cabinet with the suggestion that if Palestine was offered as a Jewish homeland, then Jewish sympathy could be mobilized for the Allied cause, and the USA might be induced to join the conflict. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis used his influence to induce President Wilson to adopt an interventionist policy.[25] In return for Zionist support the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and secretly promised to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine; a guarantee that became known as the Balfour Declaration. The machinations were confirmed by Lloyd George to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937, the report of which states that George told the commission that if the Allies supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine the Zionist leaders had promised to “rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the allied cause. They kept their word.”[26] Never mind that the war could have been ended sooner and American lives would not have been sacrificed.

The Arabs, fighting in the field for the Allies, were unaware of the new arrangements that had been reached via the Picot-Sykes agreement and the Balfour Declaration. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, they revealed these secret agreements, but the Arabs continued to fight, due to Allied assurances that neither Sykes-Picot nor the Balfour Declaration ‘would undermine the promises that had been made to them. Among the numerous reiterations of Allied support for the Arab cause, The Anglo-French Declaration of 9 November 1918 most plainly stated that France and Britain would support setting up “indigenous governments and administrations in Syria (which included Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Iraq).”[27] With such assurances, the Arab fight against the Turks was of crucial importance to the Allies. These treacherous maneuvers laid the foundations for the festering Middle East sore that has been aggravated ever since by the slavish attitude the USA and its allies have displayed towards Israel.

Target

This background of Western duplicity towards the Arabs, along with the Zionist wire-pulling, is directly relevant to the present ‘clash of civilizations’, the ‘war on terrorism’, and the Breivik atrocity as a manifestation of these. Leading up to the Breivik massacre of Labour Party youth, the neo-cons had been agitating against the Labour Government that was indicating it would adopt a more strident policy towards Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the youth wing of the party was lobbying for a Norwegian economic boycott of Israel. Joseph Klein, posting on Horowitz’s Front Page Mag two days before Breivik’s rampage, described the Norwegian Government as “Quislings” and called them the “the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews.” Is the language any less inflammatory than Breivik’s European Declaration of Independence that the news media and their pundits are scrutinizing for signs of “right-wing extremism”? Klein stated: “Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that ‘Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations’ to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state.”[28] An agreement was signed giving Palestine’s representative in Norway full ambassadorial status. Stoere also appealed for financial help for Palestinians. Other transgressions by the Norwegians, according to Klein, include a Labour Member of Parliament stating that Jews exaggerate the Holocaust; socialist leader Kristin Halvorsen having participated in an anti-Israel demonstration while serving as minister of finance; the Norwegian Government’s divesting of funds from two Israeli companies in 2010; the claim that “anti-Semitism is alive and well” among the Norwegian political, cultural and academic elite; pro-Hitler sentiments expressed by Muslim students in Norway, and more. Klein stated that part of the reason for this rise in anti-Semitism is because of the toleration of multiculturalism by the Norwegian Establishment. He ends by writing: “Norway is repeating its Quisling treachery of the Nazi era, this time in league with a growing radical Muslim population. And once again the Jews are the victims.”[29]

A Hebrew website, Rotter, states that two days before the massacre, the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party Youth, Eskil Pederson, said in an interview that it was time to end dialogue with Israel and undertake tough measures, including an economic boycott by Norway. The youth at the Labour camp aimed to lobby their party for a boycott. The site describes the Labour youth camp:

48 hours before the shooting attack on the island, the youth met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. Some called for a boycott of Israel.

On Wednesday, the second day of the ruling party youth conference on the island, the youth holiday camp discussed with the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahar Store, and ordered him to support Palestine. About 48 hours later, many of them were killed, Anders Bering Breivik launched a shooting crazy.

Labour Youth Movement demanded recognition of a Palestinian state, and foreign minister have said that the Palestinians get their own state. ‘The occupation must end, the wall should be demolished and it has to happen now,’ said Ghar Store to the audience. Some of the youngsters in the camp waving a placard with the word ‘boycott Israel’. Demanded an economic embargo on Israel. Summer camp ended in the massacre.

Leader, Askyl Pedersen, said that young people require imposition of an economic embargo on Israel. ‘Our policy on the Middle East is to be more active and demand recognition of Palestine. There is also the peace process back on track,’ said Pedersen. The Foreign Minister agreed with him, but said that a boycott is not the right approach: ‘This will make dialogue become a monologue.’ [30]

The media pundits have waxed indignant about the ‘extremists’ who have posted on ‘far Right’ websites in support of Breivik’s actions, Dr Matthew Goodwin, writing for the Telegraph:

Make no mistake: Breivik has already become a heroic figure for sections of the ultra far right, much in the same way Timothy McVeigh became a hero for sections of the militia movement in the United States. In Britain, his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment ideas are easily found in a far-right scene that has become fragmented and chaotic.[31]

Yet it does not seem to have been pointed out that Breivik’s action has generated enthusiasm in Israel. Some of the posts on the Israeli Hebrew website Rotter, state:

• Because I waited with this response until after it became clear that there was indeed a conference which explicitly called for the Boycott of Israel. I am very happy and pleased about the massacre that took place in the camp of the enemies of Israel.

• Hitler Youth members killed in the bombing of Germany were also innocent. Let us all cry about the terrible evil bombardment carried out by the Allies…We have a bunch of haters of Israel meeting in a country that hates Israel in a conference that endorses the boycott. So it’s not okay, not nice, really a tragedy for families, and we condemn the act itself, but to cry about it? Come on. We Jews are not Christians. In the Jewish religion there is no obligation to love or mourn for the enemy.

• It’s stupidity and malice not [to] want the death of those who call to boycott Israel.

• I have no sympathy for those who want the destruction of Israel.

• Not looking for excuses but it’s not our mourning. Like not mourning at the time the 50 thousand dead in the bombing of Dresden.

• May all our enemies be paid with such speed.

• At least now they have more important things to worry about than Israel.

• Maybe we can arrange a badge of honor on behalf of the International Headquarters for Saving People and the Land.[32]

It seems that Breivik’s actions made a lot of “sense” from a pro-Zionist perspective, but the motives have nothing to do with ideologies of the “far Right,” and much to do with supporting Israel.

Conclusion

The “clash of civilizations” now taking place in the name of the “war on terrorism” is a second Cold War foisted upon the world in order to achieve American global hegemony. With the eclipse of the first Cold War following the implosion of the Soviet bloc, the USA required another world bogeyman to justify its global adventures. The same ideologues undertook a new Cold War, this time against Islam, using the same type of sloganeering. Islamophobia is the new anti-Sovietism, and is serving the same interests. Trotskyites and other Marxists disaffected by the rise of Stalin created the ideological foundations for the Cold War. That is where the so-called “neo-conservative” movement has its origins.[33] Anti-Soviet rhetoric has been altered to apply to the new “menace of radical Islam.” The slogan now is “Islamofascism,” coined by neo-con ideologue Stephen Schwarz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. Schwartz’s background, like most of the neo-con founders, is as a Trotskyite, and he reiterated to National Review that he would defend the legacy of Trotsky to his “last breath.”[34]

Relations between the West and the Arab states were evolving past the very old antagonisms until Zionist machinations entered the scene during World War I. It is not too late to correct the distorted relationships that have occurred between the West and the Arabs, and then an amicable solution can be found to the problems of Muslim immigration. As for Breivik, he is a product of the forces that are inimical to the traditional West. He is no more a “conservative” than the neo-cons who sprang from the bowels of Trotskyism, plutocracy, Zionism and the CIA during the first Cold War.

Notes

[1] Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994).

[2] Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (London: Pluto Press, 1999).

[3] A Breivik, 2083: A Declaration of European Independence (London, 2011) p. 1372.

[4] A Breivik, ibid., p. 1215.

[5] “Wall of Lies,” Front Page, 25 February 2011, http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/25/ucla-daily-bruin-prints-centers-wall-of-lies/

[6] A Breivik, op. cit., p. 677.

[7] “Muhammed cartoon gallery,” Human Events, 2 February 2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12146

[8] C Bollyn, “Understanding the Roots of the Anti-Muslim Cartoon Scandal,” American Free Press, Vol. 6, no. 8, 20 February 2006.  See: “War Without End,” http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/02/07/anti-muslim-cartoons-tied-to-neo-con-fanatic.php

[9] D Pipes, “Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism,” cited by C Bollyn, ibid.

[10] D Pipes, “Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism,” danielpipes.org, http://www.danielpipes.org/3360/cartoons-and-islamic-imperialism

Originally published in the New York Sun, 7 February 2006.

[13] Michelle Boorstein, “Once Considered Anti-Islam, Senior Scholar says he’s now in the Middle,” The Washington Post, 18 August 2010. http://www.danielpipes.org/8777/in-the-middle

[15] A Breivik, op. cit., p. 1240.

[16] G Atzmon, “British Zionists Join Far Right Organisation to Promote Islamophobia and Racism in UK,” 17 August 2010,  http://deisraellobby.blogspot.com/2010/08/british-zionists-join-far-right.html

[17] Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, (New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985).

[18] Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, (New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005).

[19] B Ye’or, “Eurabaria: The Road to Munich,” National Review, 9 October 2002, http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-yeor100902.asp

[20] K R Bolton, “The Red Face of Israel’,”Foreign Policy Journal, 2 August 2, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/02/the-red-face-of-israel

[21] K R Bolton, “Chinese TV Series Lauds Israel: The Alliance Between China and Zionism,” Foreign Policy Journal, 18 August, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/18/chinese-tv-series-lauds-israel-the-alliance-between-china-and-zionism

[22] Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914-79 (New York: Caravan Books, 1979), p. 11.

[23] S Hadawi, ibid., p. 12.

[24] S Hadawi, ibid., pp. 12-13.

[25] S Hadawi, ibid., p. 13.

[26] Palestine Royal Commission Report cited by S Hadawi, ibid., p. 14.

[27] S Hadawi, ibid., p. 15.

[28] J Klein, “The Quislings of Norway,” Front Page Mag, 20 July, 2011, http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/20/the-quislings-of-norway/

[29] J Klein, ibid.

[31] M Goodwin, “Norway Killer: many within Far-Right share Anders Breivik’s ideas,” The Telegraph, London, 26 July 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658417/Norway-killer-many-within-far-right-share-Anders-Breiviks-ideas.html

[33] K R Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of US Foreign Policy’,,”Foreign Policy Journal, 3 May 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/03/americas-world-revolution-neo-trotskyist-foundations-of-u-s-foreign-policy

[34] S Schwartz, “Trotskycons?,” National Review, 11 June 2003: http://faceoff.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz061103.asp