Radicalism and New Media

Anders Behring Breivik’s Ideology Considered
By Paul Jackson
The article was originally published in Slovak daily Pravda in the op-ed section.

The video released by Anders Behring Breivik contains a summary of the ideology he wanted his extreme actions to promote. For analysts of fascism, the message developed here, and at greater length in his ebook, reveals some striking continuities and contrasts with previous forms of right-wing extremism, especially neo-Nazism. Typical for far-right ideologies, the 12 minute video sets his ideology within a long-term historical context. Broken into four sections, we start with the decline of Europe after the Second World War and end up with a diagnosis of the present in state of existential crisis.

Two key enemies are identified: Muslims, who are engaged in a new crusade to dominate the continent; and ‘cultural Marxists’, a baggy category for anyone promoting multiculturalism, the key ‘evil’ of the age. The Norwegian Labour Party was happily placed in this cultural Marxist category by Breivik. So while Muslims are alleged to commit ‘war crimes’, including ‘42,500 murders’, ‘750,000 rapes’ and ‘5.5 million acts of robbery and terrorism’ according to Breivik’s figures, cultural Marxists sit idly by and allow European culture to be destroyed. Global politics is complicit in this destruction too: George Bush and Barak Obama are controlled by cultural Marxists, while the UN is now dominated by Muslim dictatorships. Finally, the EU is simply turning into a new variant of the USSR. The enemy figures are thus typical of the Islamophobic ‘new far-right’: mainstream society in general fails to recognise the existential threat posed by the radical left and by Muslims, and needs to be shocked into action.

Notably, anti-Semitism is not part of this ideology, nor does Breivik identity with Nazism. Yet all fascisms are based on radical national regeneration, a plan for the future that will destroy all forces believed to threaten the nation. When Breivik’s video narrates this aspect of his ‘conservative revolution’, the vision is not for a single nation being regenerated, but for a pan-European revolutionary project. Blending history and revolutionary ideals, his selection of heroes is wilfully eclectic, including Charles Martel, Richard the Lionheart, Vlad Tepes and Tzar Nicholas I. All fought against Muslim invasions, and so offer Breivik historical precursors to his own actions.

This represents an extreme radicalisation of Europe’s ‘new far-right’, moving away from limited acceptance of liberal institutions and into a fully ‘revolutionary’ tenor. In recent years we have seen a revival of far-right politics as it has developed anti-Muslim themes. The French National Front, the Dutch Freedom Party, the English Defence League, Stop the Islamisation of Europe and many others within this ‘new far-right’ have been able to rise because Islamophobia chimes with the wider public in a way that anti-Semitism no longer does. This ‘new far-right’ is no longer neo-Nazi, and, unlike modern neo-Nazism, before now has not developed such ‘revolutionary’ violence. Yet with Breivik’s potent new variant of this trend, he claims that cultural Marxism and Muslim domination are forces too powerful to be overcome via any other means. This extreme and dangerous position opens the door to the sort of horrific violence that Breivik claims was the beginning of a revolution. Worryingly, as Breivik’s views chime with the wider ‘new far-right’ they could inspire fellow solo or small cell actors. To respond, across Europe, academics, governments, and civil society groups need to work together to take the ongoing threat posed by the ‘new far-right’ seriously.