Does ideology become discredited by killing in its name?

I’ve been slogging through “A European Declaration of Independence” (said to be confirmed as having been written by Anders Breivik, aka Andrew Berwick) and while I am not about to attempt to dissect it point by point, several things stand out.

Whoever the “author” (editor, really) may be, he is completely fluent in writing English, although most of the book-length screed is not his writing at all. The manifesto is overwhelmingly an unoriginal compendium of the thoughts and writings of others, and amounts to a plagiarized grab-bag of certain cherished right-wing memes.

NOTE: The document is also available here, and at a number of other sites (which I found by Googling quotes).

The endlessly repeated stuff about multiculturalism, Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and Gramsci consists of a wholly unoriginal regurgitation of the many, much-circulated American conservative diatribes against what they call “Cultural Marxism.” I have taken issue with the meme because it makes Marxism out of things which are not Marxism, but simply lifestyles at variance with traditional morality. The kitchen-sink, grab-bag, if-you’re-gay-you’re-a-commie, approach to politics may be very convenient in preaching to the red meat choir but its premises would reduce even libertarianism — even love of freedom — to a form of Marxism. Being a hedonist, gay, a pot smoker, or supporting the individual rights of such people means being seen as a tool advancing Communism. Never mind that under Communist regimes none of these things were tolerated. The Cultural Marxism argument lends itself perfectly to personal attacks and finger pointing, and IMO, there is no better way to make a political enemy than to falsely charge someone with Marxism who is in fact against Marxism. (Reminds me of how Communist support for integration made integration suspect.)

But these are my opinions, which have nothing to do with the Norwegian who saw himself as a “Justiciar Knight” crusading against Cultural Marxism by shooting innocent civilians. In no way does this awful incident discredit the meme he claimed to champion — the fact that I have disagreed with it in many posts notwithstanding.

To repeat what I said the other day,

People always say that ideas have consequences, but I disagree. Ideas themselves do not have consequences. It is the implementation of an idea that has consequences, which means that those responsible for implementing bad ideas are to blame, and not the ideas themselves.

So the hell with ideas. In and of themselves, they are harmless. It’s people who are the problem. More accurately, people who have power. In the absence of power to implement it, a bad idea is just an opinion. Like those found in any number of books I won’t name lest I give offense.

Many on the left see the massacre as a “consequence” of the critique of Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. Nonsense. That theory is no more responsible for a shooting than Karl Marx is responsible for the actions of Pol Pot. Or Herbert Marcuse for the spread of AIDS. Unless they were acting on orders from above, people who do things are responsible for their actions. So far as I can tell, no one ordered Anders Breivik to do what he did.

Ditto the war the man wanted to wage or believed he was waging against Islam. Much of the manifesto is simply a gigantic cut-and-paste copy of Fjordman’s “Defeating Eurabia” essay (and “The Eurabia Code” and addendums, all by Fjordman) and almost every anti-jihad writer of note is thrown into the manifesto, again kitchen sink style.

Does the shooting in any way discredit anti-jihad thinking? Again, how could it? Ideas stand or fall on their own, and while I have serious problems with the idea that Muslims are the enemy, how would a man shooting a bunch of Norwegian campers influence me one way or the other? I will say this, though: shooting innocent Norwegians is a very odd way to go about fighting the radical jihadist enemy.

I think this guy was basically an unoriginal plagiarist and an egomaniac. Note his fanciful titles, imaginary command structure, calls for nuclear war, etc.

And note his tone (at least, I think this excerpt is his):

What kind of society/political platform are we seeking to build/restore. What does a cultural conservative/nationalist/monocultural society constitute?

The closest similarity you will find and a good comparison is especially the Japanese and South Korean societies and to a certain degree the Taiwanese model. These three models contain a majority of all the political principles we seek to restore. They represent many of the European classical conservative principles of the 1950’s (culturally) with modern twists; in other words a monocultural, scientifically advanced, economically progressive society with an exceptional level of welfare but which will not accept multiculturalism or Cultural Marxist principles. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are today the most peaceful societies due to their monocultural model. Crime is more or less non-existent and you can travel freely everywhere without the constant fear of getting raped, ravaged, robbed or killed. They have embraced many positive aspects of globalism but have rejected many of the negative aspects. The fundaments of the patriarchal structures and family values are very strong in these three countries as the wave of feminism lacked several catalyst components (which made it a lot less potent) due to the rejection of multiculturalist/cultural Marxist thought during the 60s and 70s. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are today our role models for the conservative movement. They are peaceful and anti-imperialistic just like we have aspirations to be.

When listening to Marxist propaganda, the typical claims are all based on lies. It is a falsehood to claim that the cultural conservatives in Europe are imperialistic and violent by nature. We do NOT want to copy the failed aggressive totalitarian fascist dictatorships like Nazi Germany, far from it. We hate everything Nazi Germany stood for, in fact we view the current EUSSR/Multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe as totalitarian Nazi regimes.  We condemn imperialistic thought and we condemn genocide and violence in general. Our current struggle is based on a pre-emptive struggle (self defence). We have no territorial claims that will violate any sovereign European or other civilised country, the exception being our Middle Eastern foreign policy plan. This involves a Crusade, or to use a more modern phrase; an anti-Jihad campaign, preventing the continuation of the genocides against the Maronite, Assyrian, Coptic and other Middle Eastern Christian peoples and restoring parts of Anatolia under Greek and Armenian rule once again. Launching crusades to counter ongoing Jihads (there are 20+ Jihad fronts around the world) is acceptable, but under no circumstances shall we attack or annex territory belonging to our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, or our Buddhist or Hindu allies. Hindus and Buddhists are considered brothers in our common fight against Jihadi imperialism, atrocities and genocides.

Any cultural conservative Christian country/state declaring war against another Christian state (such as the former Serbian-Croatian war) will be regarded as the enemy of the future cultural conservative political alliance (European Federation) and will be punished severely.

Who the hell does this self-important asshole think he is? A great leader? If he did in fact just start a war, he just lost it.

And while I don’t think his actions did anything to discredit the many opinions of other people he plagiarized, others (no doubt including powerful government officials) will. Because, what happened supplies very convenient ideological ammunition — above all for the very people Anders Breivik (who calls himself Andrew Berwick) claims to oppose.

By compiling everything his enemies disagreed with into a giant manifesto and then committing mass murder it its name, he did more damage to the ideology he claimed to love than any of its enemies ever could have. And it doesn’t take much imagination to see that all thoughts in compilation will easily become, well, terrorist writings.

As Clayton Cramer (with whom I disagrees with the Cultural Marxism, btw) says,

…mowing down dozens of teenagers is about as shocking as it gets.  He has managed to take what might have been a worthwhile document (although in desperate need of editing for length) and made it completely vile by his actions.

But remember, most of it it was not his work product. I don’t think it is possible to render someone else’s opinion vile by killing in the name of it.

It is tempting to ask whether he was on the side he claims to have been on. Not that I am on his “side.” Far from it.

However, something looks fishy about this manifesto, and I thought it warranted a post.