Thursday, July 28, 2011

Dissecting the 'Breivik doctrine' (1)

While the Breivik doctrine is not really new, the Norwegian terrorist has made a true blood sacrifice, a hecatomb, to make sure his ideas are known to the World. Every fascist with pretenses of certain intellectualism is right now reading Breivik's manifesto or has already read it in full. So it is only fair that we at the Left have an idea of what this terrorist hero of the Zionists and Atlantists is saying. None the less because we are his main enemies, ranking no.1 in all his lists under the name of Cultural Marxists.

I am still on the process of reading Breivik's manifesto and I am not sure if I will be able to finish it. Life is too short to waste on lengthy fascist rantings admittedly. But this may well be the Mein Kampf of our time and, the same that one could not afford to ignore Hitler in the 1930s, we cannot ignore Breivik in the 2010s either.

By the moment I have read the introduction, which I found oddly interesting, in a twisted sense. The first thing you understand reading it is that the Butcher of Utöya is by no means a mere madman but quite lucid in the limited understanding that right wing fanaticism and religious faith allows. 

Cultural Marxism

A. Gramsci
The introduction is about Marxism, about what he calls Cultural Marxism (CM hereafter), which is what most people would call Humanism, including human rights, equality regardless of gender, race, faith or sexual preferences, etc. This he calls CM but also political correctness, etc. Essentially Breivik's seems to be a reactionary rebellion against the Humanist advancements of the late 20th century. As such reactionary rebellion it has nowhere to go (swimming against the current)... but it may cause much pain in the meantime. 

He makes a huge effort on blaming Marxists and quasi-Marxists for these advances. He names the following: Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács specially, but also Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These last three belong to the so-called Frankfurt School of philosophy, which he also mentions by name.

Particularly obsessed with Lukács

G. Lukács
There are some lies and contradictions, specially regarding Lukács. According to the Butcher of Utöya, Georg Lukács began his political life as agent of the Kremlin (sic) but he managed to be Deputy Commissary for Culture in Revolutionary Hungary as early as 1919. How come?! There was not even a consolidated Soviet government in 1919!

Yet he is proclaimed by Breivik as the father of the sexual revolution, never mind Wilhelm Reich, who was expelled from the German Communist Party for holding such radical ideas. He's also, oddly enough, make to be the father of Feminism. Never mind he had a penis... and never mind that modern Feminism arose first of all in a largely Anglosaxon context, not a Hungarian one, and many decades before Lukács.

His allegedly decisive influential action, conceiving something known as cultural pessimism, is said to have happened in a secret meeting... go figure! Never mind that Lukacs is not at all associated with this nihilistic current, as is no Marxist because Marxism is a positive constructive philosophy.

Not a single mention of Lukács' role in the 1956-58 revolutionary process in Hungary and how he was deported after the Soviet invasion. It was precisely his role in the anti-Stalinist Hungarian revolution of 1956-58 what made Lukács popular in the West. Nothing of this is discussed by Breivik, who just wants to blame it for being a somewhat influential thinker in the context of European and Western Humanism.

Like so many fascists, he is obsessed with political correctness

The fact that fascist ideas are normally snubbed by the mainstream society, he considers (twistedly enough) a danger for freedom (freedom for fascists only?) Another form of political correctness he denounces is the opening from a parochial Eurocentric conception of the World, culture and history to a more balanced one. All that he hates just like a Taliban would from a perspective only slightly changed. 

In other words: he hates the consensus that exists in his social reality, which has emerged through the struggles of the 19th and 20th century. He hates Humanism. 

Frustrated anti-feminist macho

Feminism is deeply rooted in European culture
We know that Breivik spent his last night with two prostitutes. This alone tells a lot about the mentality of someone who thinks that women are mere objects to serve men.

Because Feminism is another of his bête noirs. Never mind that Europe may have a deeper tradition of proto-feminism than other parts of the World, for the Butcher this is an anti-European value. But what he sees as the pinnacle of feminization is metrosexualism, i.e. the fact that the decadent males of today are on occasion attracted to feminine elements such as perfumes or depilation.

Never mind that the men of the Ancient Regime, which he misses so much, were much more effeminate, fashioning elaborate and fancy clothes that the revolutionary forces took out of fashion (sans culottes' main identity element was precisely not wearing those fancy culottes of the aristocrats, never mind the wigs and perfumes). 

Authoritarianism and missing the whole point

Directly related to both Feminism and the Frankfort School is another obsession of the terrorist: the Authoritarian Personality, which Breivik equates to the male gender role. Never mind that this trait belongs to a disciplinary mode of production (Fordism) that is no longer viable in the social worker era (Toyotism). There is a big blank in Breivik's understanding of Marxism and Western cultural evolution and this is Situationism and Autonomism, which are probably too modern (60s, 70s) for his reactionary mind.

Capitalism corrupts all values
What you notice when you read Breivik's rantings is that, while he has some culture, it is very specific and fragmentary and that he is obsessed with finding an antagonist historical subject which to blame and destroy, in his case the Frankfurt School and what he so insistently calls CM. He does not understand that all that is just parts of the dialectics of Capitalism, which, like a cursed Midas, destroys all it touches by means of corruption. As Capitalism destroys all ancient values by means of internal rot, someone has to come to try to save society, this actor is of course the Working Class (rather than just a bunch of intellectuals), which is always building and maintaining the machines of Capital. And not just the material machines but also the social and cultural machines. Where Capitalist predation causes a vacuum, workers come to fill it with their sans culotte ideology of equality and freedom, which is nothing but the natural human way of being: the hunter-gatherer essence never fully destroyed in each of us. 

In brief, Breivik's thought (at least in what regards to the introduction) even if displaying a patina of education and an element of certain intelligence (and indeed lucidity of the paranoid-conservative kind) is just too obsolete and does not understand how societal and cultural dialectics really work.
No wonder. I must say that it is not easy and (because of their own psychological barriers) conservatives and reactionaries (and maybe even reformists) cannot really understand what is going on. They are blinded by categories that have lost their substance long ago, like religion or gender roles, and that cannot be restored after being touched by the Capitalist Midas of Rot. And even to Capitalism itself, when they dare to look at it, they attribute more power than it actually has (it is 100% dependent on the subservience of the Working Class). 

In any case it is interesting to see how this kind of thought, in spite of being anti-Islam, is almost identical to the kind of reactionary thought that a Taliban may embrace. We are before a Norwegian Zionist-Crusader Taliban able to make massive satanic blood sacrifices of sorts in the name of Christianity and Yaveh. 

Note:  I am not sure if I wish to continue reading the Butcher's propaganda and dissecting it but doing it with the introduction only at least, has been quite reassuring, admittedly.


  1. Breivik's Political Correctness fails to envisage and approach the subject from an all-dimensional perspective and of course it is impossible to see an object or a concept from an all-diminsional perspective (for one must be omniscient), but Breivik doesn't even venture into the harsh truth of the economic growth after the 1950s and in the 1960s.

    I begin to read his introduction and all I read was his radical subjectivity when it comes to approaching cultural shifts in European society or any other society. Sluggish and very elementary aphorism particularly portrays this man's hopeless sadness and lack of vast knowledge, which of course must and is a necessity to approach Europe and her on going currents along with her nexus with the historical past.

    One of his quote: "Over the last fifty years, Western Europe has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear, and ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can."
    Ideology precedes existence??? This is so comical. He couldn't care to look at the impoverish conditions of the pre-revolution Russia or the Chinese conditions.

    His comment on Antonio Gramsci seem ridiculous. I just cant read him further either.

  2. In truth his "doctrine" is a total mess: a paranoid reaction to the loss of referents because of Capitalist decodification. Of that destruction of values caused by Capitalism he blames Marxists, when Marxists and others not-so-Marxist (I always thought Fromm and Marcuse as "Christian lefties", though I just learned they were actually Jews by birth) are only filling in the gaps: proposing even semi-unconsciously a return to the very basics of being human, naked of all cultural varnish.

    All what Marxists and such do is to say: uh, as all those old values and beliefs are false and useless, we could go back to just being human, nakedly so. Sadly people stuck in the old values reacts to this liberation with fear that becomes panic, nausea, paranoia and eventually hatred.

    And hatred does not attack real causes but imaginary causes.

    I proposed myself to read in full Breivik's manifesto because his is obviously an advancing doctrine of ultra-conservatism. Just look around Europe, specially in the North: it's full of crazy far right parties growing out of Islamophobia, Islamophobia fed by "the war on terror" made by those same ultra-conservative forces.

    When 9-11 happened I realized two things: (1) that it was an inside job and (2) that it was an attack against the Left (by creating a false struggle between fundamentalist Christians/Jews and fundamentalist Muslims, between two sides of the same reactionary Right).

    Breivik is the culmination of the process ignited in 9-11. And he is also attacking the Left, even if it is a watered down version of it.

  3. Maju. The people at The Intercept are reading, as well, the "Manifesto". Here is their first post.

  4. Curious, thanks.

    Sincerely, someone (you?) told me about this site a few days ago and I began following but then I quit because I can't stand people who is so stubborn as to deny obvious ongoing global warming.

    But they also have interesting stuff, admittedly.

  5. Yes, that was me, at Atilio´s blog. Found them when I was looking for an article by Robert Fisk. You´re right, that blog is a bit weird.


Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Comment moderation before publishing is... ON