To fight Breivik’s views, we need to understand this new, distinct extremism

Posted on July 7, 2011

Advance warning – the below article does include a quote from Breivik’s self-justifying manifesto, though I purposely have not linked to it

I’ve thought long and hard about how best to write this post, because the issue is so sensitive and (sadly) some are keen to leap on any poorly phrased comment about the recent horrors in Norway for political ends. Hopefully it does justice to the point that I’m trying to communicate, because it’s a point I feel that those of us who support freedom and democracy cannot afford to miss, at the risk of severe consequences.

The media are already struggling to characterise Breivik’s motivations and the views that led him to commit the appalling atrocities in Norway, and some interpretations are bordering on a serious misinterpretation.

It’s not the media’s fault (despite Breivik publishing a lengthy manifesto to provide his own justification) – the problem lies in the fact that we’ve got a deeply embedded understanding of the idea of neo-Nazism, a term which is now only partially accurate for the extremist threat that we face.

Neo-Nazis do exist and are a serious problem – as you can see from this Nothing British report on British neo-Nazism, there’s an extensive subculture characterised by anti-semitism, skinhead culture, heavily tattooed thrash metal bands and coded references to Hitler (such as Combat 18, the group whose number derives from Adolf Hitler’s initials as the 1st and 8th letters of the alphabet). If you’re looking for a pop culture shorthand for this neo-Nazism, you can find it pretty well summarised in the superb film American History X.

But it’s difficult to map that culture and ideology to Anders Behring Breivik, either in his appearance and lifestyle or in his self-declared motivations. Because he was clearly opposed to immigration, many have reached for the term “neo-Nazi” to describe him in that tradition. But where is the skinhead? Where is the swastika tattoo? Where’s the Hitler worship or the antisemitism? For that matter, where is the knuckle-dragging incompetence that has previously and mercilessly confounded most neo-Nazi terror plots?

That these factors don’t appear to be there (in the evidence produced so far, at least) appears to be because he is drawn from a linked but different ideology. An ideology which is just as evil and just as (or possibly even more) threatening to our free democracy, and one that we must understand and recognise as distinct in its own right if we are to defeat. You can even spot indications of his different roots in the reaction of neo-Nazis to his views; the deeply unpleasant neo-Nazi forum Stormfront is alive with condemnations of him because, in the words of one poster:

it’s a big disappointment and serious grounds for suspicion that he didn’t name the jew [as his enemy]

And there we have the core of this relatively new ideology – Breivik may well be a racist but it is primarily hatred of Muslims that seems to have motivated him, in stark comparison to the neo-Nazis’ antisemitism. Take this extract from his manifesto, for example:

Whenever I discuss the Middle East issue with a national socialist he presents the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine argument…I was unable to discuss this issue further after I was banned and kicked out by Stormfront

For this reason, Breivik and those like him tend to look down on Nazis and sneer at, rather than venerate, Hitler. After all, in their view Hitler had the wrong target; Breivik has reportedly written that Hitler should have helped to clear the Muslims from Jerusalem.

He’s not alone in that – the English Defence League, as I have written before, are Britain’s most recognisable example of a new evolution of extremism which is virulently anti-Muslim, often pro-Israel and has attempted to ally itself with Jews, Sikhs and gay people on the grounds that Shariah presents a common threat. It’s also true that in recent times the BNP have largely moved to focusing on Islam, though they are arguably motivated more by a strategic post-9/11 opportunism and new laws against racial hatred.

The point is that to characterise Breivik as a neo-Nazi in the recognisable, traditional mould is inaccurate and misleading in addressing the threat he and his ideology poses. Like many a neo-Nazi he is evidently a nut and is obviously attracted to violence as well as ludicrously pompous military imagery, as evidenced by his view that he’s a modern day Knight Templar, but it’s time we recognised this is a different school of extremism.

There is contact and sometimes overlap between neo-Nazism and whatever we want to call this new ideology – both are dangerous and evil, and it’s evident from Breivik’s own dabbling in neo-Nazi forums that the two sit very close to each other in various way.

We’re seeing calls in the UK for a strategy to address what you could loosely call White Power extremism. But one sole, catch-all strategy to fight both neo-Nazis who hate Jews and anti-Muslim “culture war” conspiracists will fail to defeat one or the other, or even both. We need a distinct strategy to combat each strand of thought.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Opinion, Politics


6 Responses

  1. Simon Rigelsford:

    Good article.

    Breivik is a real problem for the left. They have always argued that nationalistic terrorism and violence can be solved by passing laws to prohibit racial hatred and Holocaust denial etc.

    But Breivik is clearly not influenced by that type of literature, as you point out — instead, he references far more mainstream writers e.g. Melanie Phillips (who the left hate, but generally don’t think should be jailed for expressing her opinions).

    The left generally do not want to ban criticism of Muslims, because as secularists / atheists they worry that such laws could end up affecting them. So their solution is to try to push Breivik into a “neo-Nazi” box so they can keep on arguing what they always have done, without having to rethink their views.

    25.07.2011 13:35 Reply

  2. Marty Dodge:

    The skinhead/neo-Nazi bands are in fact not thrash but punk. No one would call Skrewdriver thrash by any means.

    25.07.2011 14:00 Reply

  3. Donna:

    I don’t think you’ve hit the mark either, Mark.
    Yes, his ideology is clearly anti-islamist, but more important is his choice of targets: not muslims, but the children of those on the left. His anger was not with muslims, but with his fellow Norveigans, specifically those who had advanced multiculturalism within Europe. It IS telling that he quotes Melanie Phillips – she rails not against muslims, but against extremist Islamics and those in our country who allow Islamist ideology to take root in our towns and cities. Her writing chimes with many people.
    The anger that many people have felt in this country and elsewhere in Europe towards their fellow nationals who have allowed Islamicism a foothold in Europe has been resolutely ignored across the political spectrum. While the EDL and BNP are the only people protesting about this, merging anti-islamicism with out and out racism (anti-semitism, anti-muslim etc), it’s been easy to ignore that anger. I guess it was inevitable that eventually that anger and frustration would have violent consequences on a grand scale.
    But the left don’t have the capacity to look within themselves and ask whether they have played a role in causing this situation, so his motives will continue to be mislabeled and misunderstood.

    25.07.2011 17:34 Reply

  4. Anne:

    A thought-provoking piece. Thank you.

    25.07.2011 21:17 Reply

  5. americafarm:

    Breivik told you himself in his manifesto he was anti-MARXIST. Can you say that word? Marx- ist. Try to understand. He attacked Marxists because they were Marxists.

    27.07.2011 14:17 Reply

  6. americafarm:

    To “hit the mark”, you are going to have to add “Cultural Marxists” to your Tags.

    27.07.2011 14:19 Reply

Leave a Reply