How 'Right-wing' was Anders Breivik?

Apparently it was all the fault of Right-wing bloggers and Right-wingness generally. We know this because an important, symbolic, portentous cartoon by Martin Rowson tells us so in the Guardian. And so does the New York Times.
More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.
Damn. What fools we were. There we were deluding ourselves after the USS Cole, and the Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam bombings, and the Madrid train bombings, and 7/7,…

(to read more, click here)

4 thoughts on “How 'Right-wing' was Anders Breivik?”

  1. With so many commentators, each cherry picking their favourite Breivik ‘association’, and therefore ’cause’, we will either end up with a one man legion of Breiviks, or else a stew of idiotic commentators, left holding their collective dicks.

    Breivik is unique, or if familiar to any science, of such a rare breed as to be near impossible to categorise by mere association. And with a 1500 page document, with words he selected when not himself the author, would give as good a summary of the man than any cherry picking exercise by those desperate to ride in public their personal political hobby-horse, entitled “Why all good people like me, are not ‘Breivik’.”

    As an illustration, how many on the left will point out that from the age of one, Breivik, along with one of his step sisters, was raised by his single-parent mother?

  2. You reap what you sow – every time some nut goes on a rampage, the Right falls over itself to look for a Lefty or Godless background. If this guy had Polly Toynby in his reading list instead of Jeremy Clarkson and Melanie Phillips, believe me we’d know all about it by now.

    And if he’d been a Muslim or an atheist, or had targeted a church or a bunch of right wingers, we would never hear the end of it. Muslims would be asked to ‘put their house in order’; atheists would be told to ‘disassociate themselves from this murderer among their ranks’.

    When people on the right such as Ann Coulter say things like “‘The question is not, ‘Are all Muslims terrorists?’ The question is, ‘Are all terrorists Muslims?’ The answer is yes ,” then it is surely quite fair enough to point out a terrorist who is not a Muslim.

    Finally: “With his characteristic Swiftian scorn…” followed a paragraph or so later by: “Fancy leaping to the conclusion … I mean, where’s the precedent for that?”

    Please tell me this is deliberate irony – damning Brooker for attempting “Swiftian scorn” followed by a sarcastic paragraph completely aping Brooker’s style.

  3. Let’s face it , Norway is not exactly a bastion of Christendom; this creep was an admirer of ”christian heritage ”and most certainly not a christian , per se…by his own admission , he accepted the facts of evolution and was probabely a deist , angostic or new age animist
    Politically speaking , he’s nearer to the neo nazi or EDL movement
    Furthermore , it’s bogus to try an equate him to the likes of Timothy Mcviegh as Mc was clearly a paranoid conspiracy theorist , anti goverment , redneck that seem to infest parts of rural america…..Breivik was much more intelligent , sophisticated and well read than that Yahoo

  4. I think it is importiant to challenge our assumptions. Was he right wing? Some people might say that killing a whole load of people because of a percieved hatred of “cultural marxists” and who wanted a “crusade” against the spread of Islam was right wing.

    But are these beliefs “right wing”?

    Yes. Yes they are.

    I agree however that the likes of Melanie Phillips cannot be individually blamed for inspiring any one person. It’s like eating nothing but cakes all day then blaming an individual bun for making you fat.

Comments are closed.