American right wing declares selves the real victims of Norway terrorist
Ranging from the predictable — crying that their diatribes played no role in Breivik’s ideology — to the bizarre — accusing the Labour Party of Norway of executing their own in a false-flag operation — the American right wing is grasping at straws attempting to distance itself from Christian Dominionist terrorist Anders Behring Breivik.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has taken the predictable route, insisting that his anti-jihadist, anti-Islam rhetoric, frequently quoted in Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto, had no influence over Breivik. Spencer claims that he is in no way responsible for putting ideas into Breivik’s head. Spencer, on NPR, and Atlas Shrugged blogger Pamela Geller gave the same pathetic example — Breivik being influenced by their vitriol was just like Charles Manson claiming the Beatles told him to kill people in their song lyrics.
Really? It’s just like that?
Spencer and Geller exaggerate Muslim influence in the US; speak frequently of an “invasion”; and refer to multiculturalists who are tolerant of Muslims as “traitors”. They write of an imagined “conspiracy” between radical Islamists and, of all people, secularists.
The Beatles? I admit that I’ve not memorized their entire discography, but I’m reasonably certain a song titled “I Wanna Hack Your Hand (Off)” would have caught somebody’s attention by now. (Lyrics of Helter Skelter don’t say anything about mass-murder, either.)
Before the full facts of Breivik’s ideology were revealed in the press, Spencer and Geller were doing their level best to insist that the shooter was not a conservative nor a Christian, going so far as to claim his Facebook page had been tampered with!
Click HERE to see the “before” and HERE to see the “after”. You will note that the “before” is in Norwegian, and the “after” is in English. You will also note, if you look, that the “before” is an “external” view; there is a registration button near the top left. The “after” is an “internal” view, the view of someone who has signed in.
Are they the same page? Can’t really tell, since Facebook has blocked the page(s). They could both be fake. Or they could be the same page, but “politics” and “religion” weren’t shown to those not registered. We simply can’t tell. What we do know, from his own manifesto and other sources*, is that Breivik read and shared the views of Spencer and Geller; that he was a guest blogger for Jihad Watch under the name “Fjordman”; and that he also found inspiration in the writings of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. In fact, though he routinely cited most quotes from other sources, Breivik simply plagiarized Kaczynski’s manifesto.
We also know that Breivik identified as conservative, was a member of Norway’s most conservative party, and that he was a cultural Christian. While he did not advocate a Christian theocracy per se, he did insist that all Norwegians (and eventually all Europeans) should respect the dogma and hierarchy of the Christian church, and wanted to re-establish the Knights Templar for the “Third Crusade”. In other words, he advocated Christian Dominion from a cultural, more than a religious, standpoint. The end goal is essentially the same.
Other right-wingers take a different tack. The Christian Dominionist American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer declares Breivik’s analysis quite correct; the evil Muslims are trying to “annihilate European culture”:
Breivik’s angst was caused by the presence of so many Muslims in Norway and Europe, which he correctly observes is leading to “cultural annihilation.” But he blames their presence not on the Muslims themselves but on the “cultural Marxists” and their obsession with diversity and unrestricted Islamic immigration. So he went after the Marxists rather than the Muslims.
However, Fischer attempts to distance himself and other American Dominionists from Breivik, insisting he couldn’t be a Christian; no, he’s a jihadist! Why?
He assures his would-be jihadist colleagues, “The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit (sic). Even Odinists can fight with us or by our side as brothers in this fight as long as they accept the founding principles of (the) Knights Templar…So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist” (pp. 1360, 1361).
Breivik is counting on the indulgences offered all crusaders by Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III, which guarantees entrance into heaven, and which is virtually no different than a Muslim’s conviction that killing people in the name of Allah is the only way to guarantee eternal life.
Did he just say the Catholic Crusaders are just like Muslim jihadists?
According to Fischer, since Breivik is willing to accept that the enemy of his enemy is his friend — at least, until he doesn’t need those people anymore — he’s not a Christian. He’s a jihadist. Like the Crusaders, because they weren’t Christian. Or . . . something.
Following this logic, I guess Hitler wasn’t really a racial supremacist. After all, he was willing to join forces with the Japanese to conquer his enemies. Right? (Hey, if Spencer and Geller can yammer about the Beatles and Manson, I can invoke Hitler.)
What about Glenn Beck? Surely he’s the voice of reason, right? Well, the man who himself sponsored “Vacation Liberty School” for kids via his 9/12 Project — to indoctrinate young Tea Partiers — opened with:
As the thing started to unfold, and then there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever — I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing. But anyway, so there’s this political camp, and some crazy man goes and starts shooting kids.
Yes, what kind of a freak does a Vacation Liberty Camp for kids that’s all about politics? That IS disturbing!
Beck goes on to explain that the real cause of the violence wasn’t right-wing sentiment; it was multiculturalism. The victims, you see, brought it upon themselves.
Or did they? Maybe, as Michael Savage suggests, the multiculturalists actually DID it to themselves. Murdered their own teenagers to discredit the anti-Islamist movement, in a false-flag conspiracy:
The Islamic news angle, Savage said, has faded from the press since Breivik was fingered, even though the lone Norwegian committing both crimes seems to Savage a suspect possibility. “The official story makes no sense,” Savage told WND. “This looks like a classic conspiracy.”
“This has all the appearances of a cover-up,” Savage told WND. “They created their Reichstag fire. They found their Timothy McVeigh. They created their Jack Ruby. How could one man have blown up the downtown and then raced to the island to kill the teens?
“This is likely a fabrication of the Labour Party, who needs to hold onto power to enforce their multi-culturalist, Muslim-favoring, anti-nationalist views,” he continued.
These cowards refuse to step up and acknowledge that their violent rhetoric can and has inspired an emotionally-unstable man to adopt the same inhuman, brutal methods as the Islamic terrorists they fear and despise. They fail to see how that acknowledgement could strengthen their own movement, by demonstrating that violent ideologies lead to violence.
Instead, while claiming that the violent language of the Koran instills a latent brutality in all Muslims, they hypocritically insist that their screeds declaring an “invasion” underway, calling anyone not sharing their xenophobia “traitors”, and speaking in terms of “warfare” could in no way inspire someone to engage in an act of war. They whine that Breivik’s extensive quoting of their rants doesn’t mean that they influenced him in any way.
Most pathetic of all, these gutless hypocrites are the very same who, with each act by Muslim terrorists, shriek their outrage that the only “moderate Muslims” who speak up declare the terrorists “not real Muslims”, or try to blame the victim. Then, when a Christian terrorist tries to advance his vision of a Christian monoculture throughout Europe, accomplished through any means necessary — a vision perfectly aligned with the goals of Christian Dominionists — what happens? Either they claim he’s not a real Christian, or they try to blame the victim.
Someone get these people a mirror.
Update: Bill O’Reilly has joined the “America’s Christian Right is the real victim here” persecute-a-thon, publicly attacking the media for calling Breivik a Christian:
In the manifesto, [Breivik] writes that he does not have a “personal,” religious relationship with Christ, believes in Christianity “as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform,” which he says “makes [me] Christian.”
To O’Reilly, though, it was “impossible” that Breivik is a Christian.
“No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,” he said. “The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith…we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.”
He said that the reason the media was calling Breivik a Christian was because “the left wants you to believe that fundamentalist Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are.”
. . .
O’Reilly also said that the media “is pushing the Christian angle [because] they don’t like Christians very much because we are too judgmental,” and that the press want to “diminish” social and religious conservatives.
As William Hamby explains, there are quite a number of Christian terrorists. Or do none of those people count?
Update 2: Pat Buchanan has publicly supported the accuracy of Breivik’s analysis:
Buchanan joins the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in proclaiming Breivik’s manifesto an “accurate” piece of cultural analysis. Buchanan speaks not just of a cosmic, civilizational clash between a culturally Christian west and Islam (a favorite frame of anti-Muslim agitators in the U.S.), but of a demographic crisis facing the West. Breivik wrote of this as “demographic warfare” between a “pure” race defending the continent from invading Muslims, whose presence was aided by his demonized enemy, “cultural Marxists,” or “multiculturalists,” or “politically correct elites.”
* – “Other sources” researched in depth by Dominionism researchers Alex Bird and Leah Burton. Click the asterisk and scroll down the page for details.