Breivik- Right Wing, Left Wing Or No Wing?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bugscoe, Jul 24, 2011.

  1. A good read that actually looks at the current information objectively.

    Posted on July 23, 2011 at 1:25pm by Jonathon M. Seidl

    As the world thirsts for information on the details surrounding the bombing and mass shooting in Oslo, Norway, the narrative has turned to gunman Anders Behring Breivik and his political affiliations. Quickly, he has been labeled “extreme right wing,” but is that really the fairest designation given what we know thus far?

    According to several outlets, Breivik identified with some conservative causes. But the more one digs, the more one finds that Anders Behring Breivik holds the views of a racist, bigoted, zealot that really can’t be fit into a neat box.

    The Atlantic has pulled together the overarching mainstream narrative thus far on Breivik: he‘s a Christian conservative who didn’t like Muslims. Here’s how they write it:

    But is that an oversimplified explanation?

    Consider this: The Daily Mail opens its profile on Breivik with some information that would seem to shake up any simple explanation of who he is or what he believed:
    That’s certainly a mixed bag. And some of that information would seem to hint at a possible extreme leftist position, perhaps anarchism, would it not? It certainly doesn’t reflect the views of a conservative Christian, as he claimed to be.

    It’s also important to note that the terms of American politics are not easily transferable to European politics. Often, the extremes in Europe are communists on the left and fascists on the right. In America, “extreme right wing” has been hijacked to label conservatives who adhere strictly to the Constitution, or who fight for legal immigration. (Some on the American left have even succeeded in making “extreme right wing” synonymous with the Tea Party.) In Europe, however, the term could mean zealous nationalists and militant fascists.

    So, an “extreme right wing” individual in Europe is not always an “extreme right wing” individual in America. That’s important to note, as the designation will undoubtedly make the rounds in the attack’s aftermath.

    Considering what we know about Breivik, then, could it be that the term “extreme right wing” is a misnomer? Especially considering that when you start dealing with extremist groups and individuals who fall well beyond the fringe, their beliefs often blur — they handpick a tenant from the right and bastardize it, grab an ideology from the left and skew it, and then create their own belief system.

    Breivik’s beliefs — and the actions he implemented — may show he and his ideology are as fuzzy as they come.
  2. "member of a Swedish nazi forum

    the extremes in Europe are communists on the left and fascists on the right

    the term could mean zealous nationalists and militant fascists"
    Socialist would cover all that.
  3. loik


  4. Ricter


    Lol, no. Drop the hate and pick up a book.

    loik's link is a good one.
  5. Socialism is hate. 262 million victims of democide prove it.
  6. The guy is certainly not on the left by usual European standards and it would be difficult to pigeonhole him along with the mainstream anarchists and he definitely does not belong with the hardcore European anarchists. So far as can determined (its still early days) he held largely collar and tie far right-wing nationalist views not an uncommon specimen as the have been about since the 1930's. The Christian angle is weak though I reckon he used it as an emotional crutch to justify his intent and subsequent actions.
  7. But our media in this country is sure as hell trying to peg him as a conservative by American standards. I've already seen one reference to the Tea Party and Palin. It's so completely stupid all you can do is laugh.

    Funny how the media never discusses the political leanings of a killer when we know they have no ties to the right. Hell, the media refused to call the Ft Hood shooter a muslim. But I've heard the word Christian a bazilion times in this case.
  8. Ricter


    You're actually referring to totalitarianism. Yes, the dictators thought they could force socialism on their populations, but of course no -ism can be forced on a population (without a lot of killing). No, there has to be buy-in for anything to work, and it is amazing what kinds of systems work, if only muddling along, in this world.

    But for Man's long, long history, most of it unrecorded, it's safe to say that communism and socialism were the norms. I'm relying on archaeology and anthropology to make that claim.
  9. The reference to the "Tea Party" is interesting as Breivik himself called for the formation of a "cultural Euro-Tea Party" in one of his blogs. Reading through this weekends US press I have seen all sorts of stories before the facts rubbish with UK and Euro press only marginally more logical.