Shared values of Breivik and Islamic bombers: anti-gay, anti-feminism, anti-"mingling of cultures",

[pampango]

and belief that their own religious leaders are decadent sell-outs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8658872/Anders-Breivik-There-is-nothing-to-study-in-the-mind-of-Norways-mass-killer.html

He attacks multiculturalism as a “big lie”, and asserts that “political correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus”. “Can the European Union be reformed?” he asks. “I doubt it. The EU is bound together by a self-serving class of bureaucrats who want to expand their budgets and power, despite the harm they do.” He claims that Europe has been systematically betrayed by mass immigration from Muslim countries, and that the method of this immigration has been concealed from the electorate. He cites a great many British commentators to make his points. Indeed, it is fascinating to see how rooted is this Norwegian extremist in the political discourse of the Anglosphere.

My friends, there is no easy way of saying this: a lot of what this evil nutcase says could be drawn from the blog-post threads that you will find in the media, especially the “conservative” media, in Britain.

It is certainly true that on the face of it he has much in common with some recent Islamic suicide bombers. He is disturbed by female emancipation, and thinks women would be better off in the home. He seems to be pretty down on homosexuality. Above all – and in this he strongly resembles an Islamist – he believes that his own religious leaders are deeply decadent and have deviated from orthodoxy. He is repelled, like so many Muslim terrorists, by anything that resembles the mingling of cultures.

There is an important lesson, therefore, in the case of Anders Breivik. He killed in the name of Christianity – and yet of course we don’t blame Christians or “Christendom”. Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males. Sometimes there come along pathetic young men who have a sense of powerlessness and rejection, and take a terrible revenge on the world. Sometimes there are people who feel so weak that they need to kill in order to feel strong. They don’t need an ideology to behave as they do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. A pretty good article by Johnson (Conservative Mayor of London)

Though while the theory of the rejected individual looking for excuses to take revenge on the world he blames for his rejection may apply in this and some Islamic terrorism cases, I don't think it's a general explanation. The London 7/7 bombers, for instance, seemed fairly integrated in society - a 30 year old married father, a 22 year old graduate, a 19 year old married father (with his wife expecting another at the time of the bombing) and an 18 year old with reasonable qualifications (7 GCSEs and had just finished a business course). Any feelings of rejection they had seem to come purely from their extremist Islamist views.

[snagglepuss]

2. Brevik did not kill in the name of Christianity. His only link to Christian fundies

is that he posted of fundy web sites. I have yet to see any evidence that he is anything but a nominal Christian. From everything I've seen he is a vile, deranged neo-nazi uber-nationalist who hates socialism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. He calls himself a 'Knight Templar', and frequently invokes the Crusades

as a justified war against Islam that still continues.

Breivik also exhaustively references the Knights Templar, which he calls an “international Christian military order,” that “fights” against “Islamic suppression.”
...
Breivik says the Christian military order was refounded in 2002 in London under the name PCCTS as an armed “anti-Jihad crusader-organization.”
doesn't
The Templar are recognizable by white tunics with red crosses, a symbol Breivik put on the front page of his “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” and emblazoned on homemade uniforms featured on his Facebook page.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/knights-templar-norway-crusadersgroup-explained/2011/07/25/gIQASj2RYI_blog.html

The manifesto, marked as being written in London this year, outlines plans to defend Europe against Muslim domination and calls for a Christian war. It also claims that “falsified information about the Crusades” was being taught in schools and misrepresenting what the author believes was a “defensive campaign not offensive”.
...
It estimates how many “battle-ready patriots” are available in some of the 27 member states and outlines plans for a Christian war to defend Europe against Muslim domination.

The author also calls the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Willimas, a “traitorous, evil man” for his comments about Christianity’s history of violence and approaches to Muslim leaders for conciliation between the two communities.

http://www.thejournal.ie/manifesto-attributed-to-norway-attack-suspect-criticises-cowen-mccreevy-185091-Jul2011/

"Uber-nationalist" doesn't seem accurate; he wanted to work with other northern Europeans as long as they hated Muslims.

[snagglepuss]

4. It appears that he hates Islam because he sees it as threatening his vision

of Europe. I haven't read anything to indicate he has strong personal religious beliefs. His using medieval Christian symbols reminds me of Hitler glomming on to ancient rites and practices. He, like Hitler, is a fantasist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Johnson has been caught in hypocrisy

Now: "Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males."

2005: "That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem."

Via Liberal Conspiracy: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/07/25/anders-breivik-wasnt-a-lone-wolf-he-was-part-of-a-movement/

And Johnson was editor of The Spectator in Nov 2005 (resigned Dec 2005), so he was responsible for this cover:
http://inayatscorner.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8080/2010/08/eurabian_nightmare.jpg

Breivik put that in his video; I wondered if it was photoshopped (it was next to one from The Economist which had been photoshopped, changing "Eurabia: The myth and reality of Islam in Europe" to "Eurabia: Europe committing demographic and cultural suicide"). Turns out Johnson's Spectator cover was completely genuine.