Anders Breivik & ‘The Clash of Civilisations’

K R Bolton

Anders Breivik wanted notoriety. He is reported to have stated that he would become the most notorious killer since World War II. Although such an ambition is hardly practicable for one individual, no matter how avid at killing, for someone who preached on the conservative Right taking the ‘high moral ground’, his actions have resulted in the further demonisation and alienation of Rightist ideas. The news media has had a field day in headlining Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the ‘far Right’, and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik’ was an avid Zionist, whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarians and ‘neo-conservatives’. He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the ‘clash of civilisations’.

Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his only current organisational affiliation seems to have been with Freemasonry and with his own minuscule – and possibly non-existent - ‘Knights Templar’. His ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a ‘Zionist’, a ‘stanch supporter of Israel’, and/or that of a ‘Mason’? Headlines could have read ‘Zionist extremist on shooting spree’; ‘Freemason massacres youngsters at Labour camp in Norway’, and the like.

The Atlantic Wire headlining their article summarising the background of Breivik from several news sources reads: ‘Profile: The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway’s Massacre’. While focusing on his ‘right wing extremism’ and ‘Christian fundamentalism’, there is a passing reference to his ‘interest’ in Freemasonry.[1] ‘Christian fundamentalism’ has been a focus. While Christian fundamentalists are generally among the staunchest defenders of Israel as reflecting Biblical prophecy, Breivik was in no sense a ‘Christian fundamentalist’, or even a Christian per se. He equates Western Civilisation with ‘Christendom’, and while this is a legitimate principle from a rightist and pan-European perceptive, the media references have again sought to obfuscate Breivik’s ideological commitments. Breivik, in describing the nature of his revived order of Knights Templar, which on his own account, only consisted of a few members worldwide, states that:

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).[2]


Despite the catch-cries about Christianity, Breivik adhered to European secularism and the enlightenment. Such views are more apt for a Freemason than for an advocate of a revived Western Christendom. While he advocated banning the Islamic religion form Europe, he seems to have been totally oblivious to the intrinsically anti-Christian nature of Orthodox Judaism,[3] and while he wrote at length on the supposed enmity between ‘Judaeo-Christianity’ and Islam, he wrote nothing of the anti-Christian record of Israel,[4] including the demolition of Christian holy sites, and the common practice of spitting on Christian clergy in the Holy Land. Although he did recognise historical predominance of Jews in Leftist movements, this was an acknowledgement of the rivalry within Jewry between liberals and leftists on the one side and ‘neo-conservatives’ and ‘right-wingers’ on the other, the latter being considered his best potential allies in the fight against Islam. Breivik is Judaeophilic to the extent that he is Islamophobic, writing in his manifesto:


Regardless of what the Jewish communities motives are I think it’s imperative that they take a stance on multiculturalism and Muslim immigration as soon as humanly possible. They have to recognise that ‘multiculturalism’ is the system that allows Europe to be Islamised and it’s obviously not in their interest to contribute to this. Jews will in a much larger degree start to support the ‘new right’ (just like everyone else), who oppose multiculturalism as a means to stop Islamisation, at least this is my hope. In the back of their minds they realise that a Muslim Europe will be more ‘anti-Semitic’ than a Christian Europe. Muslims don’t have the guilt complex that Europeans have. Many Jews feel they are trapped between the ‘bark and the wood’, they are both sceptical of Muslim immigration on one side and of the nationalist far right wing movements on the other side. Nevertheless, time is off [sic] the essence and it is imperative that the European Jewish community without delay take a stance on the ongoing Islamisation. Neutrality on this issue is not an option. The only way of doing this is to back the new right wing (antimulticulturalism, pro-Israel) groups and political parties (also manifested through views such as by moderate Jewish writers such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or).[5]


Breivik’s opposition to Jewish leftists, as with his opposition to liberals and leftists of any type, is no more antagonistic towards Jews per se than the opposition of Jewish neo-cons towards Jews leftists. The above passage from Breivik is in total accord with the pro-Zionist neo-con party-line, as will be seen.

The New York Times defined Breivik as a ‘right-wing fundamentalist Christian’.[6] The Daily Mail cogently carried the headline: ‘Norwegian massacre gunman was a right-wing extremist who hated Muslims’.[7] Even alternative media such as Global Research have maintained the fiction, carrying an article calling him a ‘Christian fundamentalist’ associated with the ‘extreme Right’. [8]

What is notable is that while there are there passing references to Freemasonry in these articles, there is not a single mention of one of the primary aspects of Breivik’s ideology, pro-Zionism and support for Israel. Although the implication is that Breivik is a ‘neo-nazi’, Breivik emphasised throughout his manifesto his opposition to three ideologies all of which he calls ‘hate’ ideologies: Islam, Marxism and National Socialism. He wrote of Hitler:

The great Satan, his cult and the Jews. Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. … Hitler almost destroyed everything with his reckless and unforgivable actions and he will forever be known as a traitor to the Nordic-Germanic tribes.[9]


Whether Breivik’s assessment of Hitler’s legacy is legitimate is not the point. Rather, it is a matter that has not been mentioned by the media accounts, any more than his Zionophilia.

Classical Liberal

Breivik is not a ‘conservative’ or a traditionalist. He repudiates the traditionalism of Rene Guenon for example, because traditionalists recognise the validity of all remnants of tradition as valuable in a world in decay thanks to the spread of what the neo-cons laud as ‘Western values’. Guenon, as Breivik points out, was a Sufi. European traditionalists and revolutionary conservatives will seek out alliances with other traditionalists in confronting what traditionalist Julius Evola called the ‘revolt against the modern world’.[10] Certain Muslims are more in accord with the aims of Western traditionalists than those neo-cons, plutocrats and Zionists who laud their ‘war against terrorism’ as upholding ‘Western values’. What exactly are these ‘Western values’ that the ‘war on terrorism’, which the USA as the ‘leader of the free world’, seeks to impose on a global basis? What amounts to a global kulturkampf against all traditional values has been most cogently explained by neo-con military strategist Lt. Col. Ralph Peters:

We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.


There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

Yes, foreign cultures are reasserting their threatened identities - usually with marginal, if any, success--and yes, they are attempting to escape our influence. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure, and you don’t have to die of it to be hindered or crippled in your integrity or competitiveness. The very struggle of other cultures to resist American cultural intrusion fatefully diverts their energies from the pursuit of the future. We should not fear the advent of fundamentalist or rejectionist regimes. They are simply guaranteeing their peoples’ failure, while further increasing our relative strength.[11]

Does the ‘revolutionary conservative’ (a term that Breivik applied to himself) have more in common with the Islamic ‘rejectionist’ regimes, or with the American cultural ‘infection’? That is the question.

Additionally, the opposition to usury and the international debt finance system is a crucial issue that is better understood among Muslims than among Westerners, including nationalists and conservatives, and is also something that traditional Islam has in agreement with the traditional Catholic opposition to usury. Despite the detailed nature of Breivik’s manifesto, he mentions nothing about the central role of international finance, while his attitudes on economics are classical liberal rather than ‘revolutionary conservative’. Those he mentions as ideological influences include: Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, [12] and Hayek. He refers occasionally to Nietzsche, whose attitudes towards Islam would surely not meet with Breivik’s approval.

Israel & Islam

Breivik identifies with the Zionist extreme Right. This calls to mind the likes of the Jewish Defense League, Likud, the settler movement, etc. Breivik’s support for the expansion of Israeli borders north and south also reminds one of the ‘Greater Israeli empire’ that has always been a basis of the Zionist ‘extreme right’. He sees Israel as the vanguard in the fight against Islam, writing:

While most people refer to Israel's security fence as a ‘wall’, the fact remains that less than 5 percent of the barrier is actually concrete slab. The rest is a network of fence and sensors. The fence has cut terrorism incidents by more than 90% since its completion. What was the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area? The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000…[13] 1215-


His justification for the ‘security wall’ is the same party line as that of other pro-Zionists, including the neo-con ideologues. The main difference is that Breivik is happy to call this situation ‘apartheid’, while the neo-cons recoil at the word.[14] Was Breivik inspired in his shooting rampage of Norwegian youths more by the example of the Israeli security forces than by the crusader knights?

Clash of Civilisations

Breivik is a product of the ‘clash of civilisations’, formulated by neo-con ideologues and used by American and Zionist interests to philosophically justify the so-called ‘war on terrorism’. He is the product of a legacy that is anything but ‘conservative’ in the Western historical sense: an aspiring underground resistance fighter against the Islamic occupation of Europe, who, in other circumstances, would be honoured as a war hero. He sees Islamic laws and customs taking the place of Western laws. The attitude is no different to that of Sarkozy’s attempts to ban the Burka in public. This is not to argue whether Sarkozy’s call for the  prohibition is right or wrong; it is merely to observe that Breivik is part of a process that is being legitimised by mainstream politicians in pursuit of pro-Zionist and pro-American agendas in the ‘clash of civilisations’. It is also one of the many areas where Islam, as the remnant of a traditionalist creed that inexorably does come into conflict with the West in its secular-liberal cycle of decline, is an offence not only to neo-con so-called ‘right-wingers’ but also to Western liberals who see it as an offence to feminism and ‘universal human rights’.  Hence, an opinion piece in Australia’s Herald Sun quips: ‘Such controls on women’s sexuality are pointless, and that should be condemned along with other mumbo-jumbo still practised across the world’.[15] The liberal secular humanists and the so-called ‘right’ of the neo-con movement both want global uniformity based on so-called ‘Western’ secular values of the type previously described by Ralph Peters as part of a global kulturkampf.  Those values, as this instance in regard to the burka indicates, are often similar. It seems to be from the perspective of opposing such global uniformity that the New Right in France in particular, so far from seeking the imposition of ‘Western’ secular values, Sarkozy-style, advocates an ‘identitarian’ approach that eschews cultural assimilation, although this has brought criticism and discord from other elements of the French Right. Breivik stands for a uniform approach to cultural imposition, writing:

Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO.[16]

Again it was symptomatic of the ‘clash of civilisations’. The cartoons published in Denmark were a contrived provocation against Muslims in order to create a climate of tension. It is such strategy of tension that Breivik sought in a more dramatic way. The American neo-con magazine Human Events, which by-lines itself as ‘leading conservative media since 1944’, was among the Western media that republished the cartoons.[17] It is of added interest in that one of those instrumental in the 2006 Muhammad cartoon provocation was Daniel Pipes, cited previously as one of Breivik’s ideological gurus, who he calls a ‘moderate Jewish writer’ along with Bat Ye’or. Christopher Bollyn, writing for American Free Press, stated of this:

The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal has turned out to be a major step forward for the Zionist Neo-cons and their long-planned ‘clash of civilisations’, the artificially constructed conflict designed to put the so-called Christian West against the Islamic world.[18]

Bollyn wrote that Flemming Rose, the ‘cultural editor’ who commissioned the cartoons for his newspaper Jyllands‑Posten, visited the Philadelphia office of Daniel Pipe’s website Middle East Forum in 2004. ‘Rose then penned a sympathetic article about Pipes entitled “The Threat from Islamism”, which promoted his extreme anti‑Islamic views without mentioning the fact that Pipes is a rabid Zionist extremist’. Bollyn cited references by the individual whom Breivik recommends as a ‘moderate Jewish writer’, Pipes having written that a ‘change of heart’ of the Palestinians can only be achieved by their ‘being utterly defeated’. After three days of Muslim rioting in Denmark USA’s CNN TV network turned to Daniel Pipes as their pundit on the situation, who then blamed ‘Islamic extremists’. At the time, neo-con US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the Syrian and Iranian governments for protests in those states. Pipes appealed to Western liberal secular values in regard to the tumult that was sparked by his Danish comrade:

Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise. Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not’.[19]

This is the Breivik line that he learned at the metaphorical knees of his neo-con and Zionist gurus. Pipes at the time cited in support another Breivik ideological hero, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, which is part of the network of neo-con luminary David Horowitz. Pipes wrote: ‘Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand “resolutely with Denmark.” The informative Brussels Journal asserts, “We are all Danes now.”’’[20]

Now Pipes states of Breivik that ‘authors and artists’ such as himself cannot be held responsible for the actions of those they inspire and, like Robert Spencer and other neo-cons, he reiterates what seems to be their party-line on the matter by giving the example, among others, of how The Beatles’ ‘Helter Skelter’ influenced Charles Manson.[21] However, the connection is just not that cryptic: the neo-con coteries, including Daniel Pipes, have been promoting the ‘clash of civilisations’ and when a foot solider goes rogue and gets out of control they protest: ‘don’t blame me’. Pipes is more than a street corner agitator. He is a visiting fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, with columns appearing in newspapers around the world. He has lectured at the US Naval War College, Harvard and others and appears on leading TV networks. His Middle East Forum has a budget of $4,000,000.[22] In a 2010 interview with the Washington Post Pipes stated that he is no longer regularly criticised as Islamophobic because of the proliferation of more extreme Islamophobes. This means that Pipes’ and others such as Spencer and Horowitz now look ‘moderate’ because of the shifting of the centre of Islamicophobic gravity by years of agitation. The interview also mentions a particularly interesting phenomenon; the support Pipes had given to the Dutch ‘right-wing’ politician Geert Wilders who, like Breivik, wants to ban the Koran in The Netherlands. While regarding the ‘new crop of bloggers’ as ‘unsophisticated, Pipes is quoted as saying:

Pipes says he shares ‘the same enemies’ with people like Wilders and the new crop of bloggers. ‘We’re in the same trench but we have different views of what the problem is. We both see an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West. We are both against it, and want to maintain Western civilization. But we understand the nature of the problem differently’. Important distinction, in your eyes?[23]

It is just this type of alliance between the neo-cons, Zionists and the European so-called ‘right-wing’ that Breivik regards as a basis for the anti-Islamic civil war he hoped to foment in Europe. It is not an isolated phenomenon. The well-publicised English Defence League’s anti-Muslim demonstrations and riots are marked by the number of Israeli flags appearing amidst their shaven headed ranks.[24] Breivik regards the EDL as one of the better organisations, writing:

The British EDL seems to be the first youth organisation that has finally understood this. Sure, in the beginning it was the occasional egg heads who shouted racist slogans and did Nazi salutes but these individuals were kicked out. An organisation such as the EDL has the moral high ground and can easily justify their political standpoints as they publicly oppose racism and authoritarianism.[25]


According to the anti-Zionist former Israeli Gilad Atzmon, the EDL has formed a ‘Jewish Division’, which the London Jewish Chronicle states immediately drew ‘hundreds’ of followers. The Division is led by Roberta Moore, who was interviewed by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and boasted of how the ‘Jews were exploiting’ the EDL:

Roberta Moore, aged 39, the leader of the Jewish Division, admitted this week to Ha'aretz that it is ‘actually the Jewish Division that exploits the EDL’. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper on 13 July 2010, she said: ‘They [the EDL] think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish Division. If anything, we are exploiting them’.[26]

Of the previously mentioned Bat Ye’or, a Jewish woman of Egyptian birth, resident in Britain, she specialises in writing of Jewish experiences in Muslim states.[27] Her theme of ‘Eurabia’, is a condemnation of emerging relations between Europe and the Arab states.[28] It is a concept that was taken up by Breivik. Ye’or contends that ‘Eurabia’ is a development of ‘nazi’ and ‘fascist’ origins in alliance with radical Arabs, and has placed European states in a foreign policy position inimical to the interests of both Israel and the USA. In other words, it is indicative of Europe as a ‘third force’.  This ‘Eurabia’ was formalised in 1974 in Paris in an association called Euro-Arab Dialogue. Ye’or has outlined her views in many articles, one of which was published in the neo-con National Review.[29] She has attracted the support of neo-cons such as Robert Spencer. From a Western cultural perspective, the concept of Eurabia so abhorred to Ye’or and other neo-cons, plutocrats and Zionists, is hopeful. The relations souring the Arabs states and the West are of intrusive origins and could be addressed diplomatically. The origins of poisoned relations between the West and the Arabs will now be considered.

Souring of Arab and Western Relations

Israel has existed for much of its history since 1948 by maintaining the fiction that it is the only reliable state in the Middle East that is Western-orientated amidst a sea of states hostile to ‘Western values’. The dichotomy is misleading. Israel was for the first years of its existence largely a centre of Marxist agitation in the Middle East, and even before the declaration of Israel in 1948, Zionist settlers in Palestine were conveyers of the Marxist creed that has never found fertile ground in any form among the Arabs.[30] Israel is neither pro-Western nor anti-Western; it is pro-Israel, no more and no less. Israel has always played a duplicitous game diplomatically. For example, it has for decades maintained a largely covert relationship with Red China to the point of contravening US restrictions on weapons transfers.[31] As for the souring of relations between the West and the Arabs, this is of a particularly treacherous nature, and is a festering sore that the West has the responsibility to heal.

The origins of this perfidy are in World War I at a time when the Arabs were under Ottoman rule. Zionist hopes for gaining Palestine seemed at the time to rest with Turkey and Germany; while Arab independence rested with the vanquishing of those powers, out of which independent Arab states might emerge. In return for Arab support the Allies led them to believe that independent states would be granted. In 1915 Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, speaking for the Arab world, approached Sir Henry McMahon, British Commissioner in Cairo, offering support for the war against the Turks if Britain would pledge support for Arab independence. Correspondence between the two during 1915 and early 1916 culminated in McMahon’s guarantee of British support for independence within the requested boundaries.[32] However, in the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement’ of 1916 between Britain and France, ‘parts’ of Palestine would be under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sheriff of Mecca.[33] This Anglo-French agreement already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sheriff Hussein, and without his knowledge. Lord Curzon remarked that the boundary lines drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement indicated ‘gross ignorance’ and he assumed that it was never believed the agreement would be implemented. Prime Minister Lloyd George considered the Sykes-Picot agreement foolish and dishonourable, but it was nonetheless implemented after the Allied victory.[34]

In 1916 the war was going badly for the Allies, and the only hope was to persuade the USA to enter. Sykes approached the War Cabinet with the suggestion that if Palestine was offered as a Jewish homeland, then Jewish sympathy could be mobilised for the Allied cause, and the USA might be induced to join the conflict. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis used his influence to induce President Wilson to adopt an interventionist policy.[35] In return for Zionist support the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and secretly promised to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine; a guarantee which became known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’. The machinations were confirmed by Lloyd George to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937, the report of which states that George told the commission that if the Allies supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine the Zionist leaders had promised to ‘rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the allied cause. They kept their word’.[36]

The Arabs, fighting in the field for the Allies, were unaware of the new arrangements that had been reached via the Picot-Sykes agreement and the Balfour Declaration. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia they revealed these secret agreements, but the Arabs continued to fight, due to Allied assurances that neither Sykes-Picot nor the ‘Balfour Declaration’ ‘ would undermine the promises that had been made to them. Among the numerous reiterations of Allied support for the Arab cause, ‘The Anglo-French Declaration’ of 9 November 1918 most plainly stated that France and Britain would support setting up ‘indigenous governments and administrations in Syria (which included Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Iraq).[37] With such assurances the Arab fight against the Turks was of crucial importance to the Allies. These treacherous manoeuvres laid the foundations for the festering Middle East sore that has been aggravated ever since by the slavish attitude the USA and its allies have displayed towards Israel.


This background of Western duplicity towards the Arabs, along with the Zionist wire-pulling, is directly relevant to the present ‘clash of civilisations’, the ‘war on terrorism’, and the Breivik atrocity as a manifestation of these. Leading up to the Breivik massacre of Labour Party youth, the neo-cons had been agitating against the Labour Government that was indicating it would adopt a more strident policy towards Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the youth wing of the party was lobbying for a Norwegian economic boycott of Israel. Joseph Klein, posting on Horowitz’s Front Page Mag  two days before Breivik’s rampage, described the Norwegian Government as ‘Quislings’ and called them the ‘the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews’. Is the language any less inflammatory than Breivik’s European Declaration of Independence that the news media and their pundits are scrutinising for signs of ‘right-wing extremism’? Klein stated: ‘Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that “Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations” to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state’.[38] An agreement was signed giving Palestine’s representative in Norway full ambassadorial status. Stoere also appealed for financial help for Palestinians. Other transgressions by the Norwegians, according to Klein, include a Labour Member of Parliament stating that Jews exaggerate the Holocaust; ‘socialist leader’ Kristin Halvorsen having participated in an anti-Israel demonstration while serving as minister of finance; the Norwegian Government’s divesting of funds from two Israeli companies in 2010; the claim that ‘anti-Semitism is ‘alive and well’ among the Norwegian political, cultural and academic elite; pro-Hitler sentiments expressed by Muslim students in Norway, and more. Klein stated that part of the reason for this rise in ‘anti-Semitism’ is because of the toleration of multiculturalism by the Norwegian Establishment. He ends by writing: ‘Norway is repeating its Quisling treachery of the Nazi era, this time in league with a growing radical Muslim population. And once again the Jews are the victims’.[39]

A Hebrew website, Rotter, states that two days before the massacre the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party Youth, Eskil Pederson, said in an interview that it was time to end dialogue with Israel and undertake tough measures, including an economic boycott by Norway. The youth at the Labour camp aimed to lobby their party for a boycott. The site describes the Labour youth camp:

48 hours before the shooting attack on the island, the youth met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. Some called for a boycott of Israel.

On Wednesday, the second day of the ruling party youth conference on the island, the youth holiday camp discussed with the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahar Store, and ordered him to support Palestine. About 48 hours later, many of them were killed, Anders Bering Breivik launched a shooting crazy.

Labour Youth Movement demanded recognition of a Palestinian state, and foreign minister have said that the Palestinians get their own state. ‘The occupation must end, the wall should be demolished and it has to happen now,’ said Ghar Store to the audience. Some of the youngsters in the camp waving a placard with the word ‘boycott Israel’. Demanded an economic embargo on Israel. Summer camp ended in the massacre.

Leader, Askyl Pedersen, said that young people require imposition of  an economic embargo on Israel. ‘Our policy on the Middle East is to be more active and demand recognition of Palestine. There is also the peace process back on track,’ said Pedersen. The Foreign Minister agreed with him, but said that a boycott is not the right approach: ‘This will make dialogue become a monologue.’ [40]

The media pundits have waxed indignant about the ‘extremists’ who have posted on ‘far Right’ websites in support of Breivik’s actions, Dr Matthew Goodwin, writing for the Telegraph:

Make no mistake: Breivik has already become a heroic figure for sections of the ultra far right, much in the same way Timothy McVeigh became a hero for sections of the militia movement in the United States. In Britain, his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment ideas are easily found in a far-right scene that has become fragmented and chaotic.[41]

Yet it does not seem to have been pointed out that Breivik’s action has generated enthusiasm in Israel. Some of the posts on the Israeli Hebrew website Rotter, state:

·        Because I waited with this response until after it became clear that there was indeed a conference which explicitly called for the Boycott of Israel. I am very happy and pleased about the massacre that took place in the camp of the enemies of Israel.

·        Hitler Youth members killed in the bombing of Germany were also innocent. Let us all cry about the terrible evil bombardment carried out by the Allies…We have a bunch of haters of Israel meeting in a country that hates Israel in a conference that endorses the boycott. So it’s not okay, not nice, really a tragedy for families, and we condemn the act itself, but to cry about it? Come on. We Jews are not Christians. In the Jewish religion there is no obligation to love or mourn for the enemy.

·        It's stupidity and malice not want the death of those who call to boycott Israel.

·        I have no sympathy for those who want the destruction of Israel.

·        Not looking for excuses but it’s not our mourning. Like not mourning at the time the 50 thousand dead in the bombing of Dresden

·        May all our enemies be paid with such speed.

·        At least now they have more important things to worry about than Israel.

·        Maybe we can arrange a badge of honor on behalf of the International Headquarters for Saving People and the Land.[42]

It seems that Breivik’s actions made a lot of ‘sense’ from a pro-Zionist perspective, and the motives have nothing to do with ideologies of the ‘far Right’, and much to do with supporting Israel.


The ‘clash of civilisations’ now taking place in the name of the ‘war on terrorism’ is a second ‘Cold War’ foisted upon the world in order to achieve American global hegemony. With the eclipse of the ‘Cold War’ following the implosion of the Soviet bloc, the USA required another world bogeyman to justify its global adventures. The ‘right’ was dragooned into supporting US globalisation during the Cold War under the banner of ‘fighting communism’, ‘defending democracy’, etc. With the conclusion of the anti-Soviet Cold War, these same ideologues undertook a new Cold War, this time against Islam, using the same type of sloganeering. Islamophobia is the new anti-Sovietism, and is serving the same interests. Trotskyites and other Marxists disaffected by the rise of Stalin created the ideological foundations for the Cold War. The so-called ‘neo-conservative’ movement has its origins in Trotskyist anti-Stalinism.[43] Anti-Soviet rhetoric has been altered to apply to the new ‘menace of racial Islam’. The slogan now is ‘Islamofascism’, coined by neo-con ideologue Stephen Schwarz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. Schwartz’s background, like most of the neo-con founders, is as a Trotskyite, and he reiterated to the neo-con magazine National Review that he would defend the legacy of Trotsky to his ‘last breath’.[44] How does this legacy connect with ‘revolutionary conservative’ or the ‘right’? It is a creation of plutocracy, Zionism, post-Trotskyites, and the CIA.

A better option for a revived Western Civilisation, based on genuine ‘Western values’, and for the world, could revolve upon what the neo-cons and their Zionist allies have condemned as ‘Eurabia’. The common enemies are Zionism, US cultural subversion, international finance and concomitant forms of imperialism. Relations between the West and the Arab states were evolving past the very old antagonisms until Zionist machinations entered the scene during World War I. It is not too late to correct the distorted relationships that have occurred between the West and the Arabs, and then an amicable solution can be found to the problems of Muslim immigration. As for Breivik, he is a product of the forces that are inimical to the traditional West.


[1] U Seghal, ‘Profile: The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway's Massacre’,

That Breivik was a Freemason at the time of the killings is confirmed by his having been expelled from the Norwegian Order of Freemasons after the event. The Templar red cross that is carried on the Norwegian Freemasons’ coat-of-arms is also on the cover of Breivik’s manifesto, A European Declaration of Independence. See: Ivar A Skar, Sovereign Grand Master, ‘The Norwegian Order of Freemasons expressing compassion and care’,

[2] A Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence (London: Pauperes Commilitones Chrsti Templique Solomonici, 2011), p. 1361. Breivik’s emphasis.

[3] Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994).

[4] Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (London: Pluto Press, 1999).

[5] A Breivik, op. cit., p. 1372.

[6] S Erlanger, S Shane, ‘Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War’, New York Times, 23 July 2011,

[7] Mail Online, 24 July 2011,

[8] Finian Cunningham, ‘Obama Reaction to Norway Massacre Betrays US “War on Terror” Fundamentalism’, Global Research, 23 July, 2011,

[9] A Breivik,op. cit., ., pp. 1162-1163.

[10] J Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World’ (Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 1995).

[11] R Peters, ‘Constant Conflict’, Parameters, US Army War College, Vol. XXVII, Summer 1997, 4-14.

Peters was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible for future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer for Eurasia, he served exclusively at the tactical level. He is a graduate of the US Army Command and General Staff College. Over the past several years, his professional and personal research took Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the countries of the Andean Ridge. He has published widely on military and international concerns. Peters retired in 1998 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and continues to write widely as a novelist, essayist and is a frequent media commentator, which includes a position as an analyst for Fox News.

[12] A Breivik, op. cit. p. 373.

[13] A Breivik, ibid., p. 1215.

[14] ‘Wall of Lies,’ Front Page, 25 February 2011,

[15] Jill Singer, ‘Ban burka in the name of freedom’, Herald Sun, 25 June 2009,

[16] A Breivik, op. cit., p. 677.

[17] ‘Muhammed cartoon gallery’, Human Events, 2 February 2006,

[18] C Bollyn, ‘Understanding the Roots of the Anti-Muslim Cartoon Scandal’, American Free Press, Vol. 6, no. 8, 20 February 2006.  See: ‘War Without End’,

[19] D Pipes, ‘Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism’, cited by C Bollyn, ibid.

[20] D Pipes, ‘Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism’,,

Originally published in the New York Sun, 7 February 2006.

[21] D Pipes, 24 July 2011,


[23] Michelle Boorstein, ‘Once Considered Anti-Islam, Senior Scholar says he’s now in the Middle’, The Washington Post, 18 August 2010.


[25] A Breivik, op. cit., p. 1240.

[26] G Atzmon, ‘British Zionists Join Far Right Organisation to Promote Islamophobia and Racism in UK’, 17 August 2010,

[27] Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, (New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985).

[28] Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, (New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005).

[29] B Ye’or, ‘Eurabaria: The Road to Munich’, National Review, 9 October 2002,

[30] K R Bolton, ‘The Red Face of Israel’, Foreign Policy Journal,

2 August 2, 2010,

[31] K R Bolton, ‘Chinese TV Series Lauds Israel: The Alliance Between China and Zionism’, Foreign Policy Journal, 18 August, 2010,

[32] Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914-79 (New York: Caravan Books, 1979), p. 11.

[33] S Hadawi, ibid., p. 12.

[34] S Hadawi, ibid., pp. 12-13.

[35] S Hadawi, ibid., p. 13.

[36] Palestine Royal Commission Report cited by S Hadawi, ibid., p. 14.

[37] S Hadawi, ibid., p. 15.

[38] J Klein, ‘The Quislings of Norway’, Front Page Mag, 20 July, 2011,

[39] J Klein, ibid.


[41] M Goodwin, ‘Norway Killer: many within Far-Right share Anders Breivik’s ideas’, The Telegraph, London, 26 July 2011,


[43] K R Bolton, ‘America’s “World Revolution”: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of US Foreign Policy’, Foreign Policy Journal, 3 May 2010,

[44] S Schwartz, ‘Trotskycons?,’ National Review, 11 June 2003: