One of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points. But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system. Therefore, reality must be suppressed.

If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts.

But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies.

So far so good.

But the above words are not mine, but the opening remarks of Anders Behring Breivik in his “manifesto”, 2083 A European Declaration Of Independence. Following his horrific crimes, this document has been referred to as an “online rant” by the “politically correct media lackeys of the Marxist cultural relativists”, as Breivik would see them.

It is certainly unstructured but it is far from a rant. In fact it moves seamlessly from abstruse political and philosophic discussion, as above, to debating the the relative merits of pure nicotine in hollow point bullets and instructing the reader you how to extract Ricin from Castor beans. On the one hand it reveals Breivik is a deranged criminal, but on the other, shows that his crime had a clearly political motivation.

But why did he do it? Was he motivated principally by religion, nationalism or racism and, if so, what was the logic in killing fellow Norwegians, people of his own faith, nation and ethnicity?

I think the answer relates specifically to the socio-economic make up of the Nordic countries.

Norway and Sweden are often held up as models of social democracy. They are countries with highly efficient commercial and industrial systems featuring a well cared for and highly educated work force. In terms of politics, the Social Democratic Workers Party in Sweden and the Labour Party in Norway have been dominant for almost 100 years. But although both countries have constitutional monarchies and left of centre governments, the real authority is invested in a ruling cabal of financiers and industrialists who make the decisions behind the scenes. It is a close knit ruling elite, the members of which tend to build their summer houses round the same lakes.

So whilst there are elements of the Nordic societies that look, from the outside, like a form of socialism, it is actually more like corporate paternalism. This produces a very controlled environment and, whilst there is a general culture of deference to authority within all organisational structures, liberal and egalitarian values are dominant.

But scratch the surface of this Fabian dream world and tensions begin to show. The Swedish people, for example, have a schizophrenic relationship with drugs, alcohol, gambling and sex, part of which is a relic of the influence of the Lutheran high church. They are outwardly reserved yet, strangely, have the most vibrant heavy metal scene in Europe. They have a suicide rate 50% higher than that of the UK. And whilst the state openly welcomes immigrants in many small towns you find local people patrolling the streets, in vigilante groups, ostensibly to protect their children from Somali drug dealers and rapists.

So, although Breivik was undoubtedly motivated by his religious and nationalist views, I think that ultimately, his quarrel was not with immigrants or Islam, but with the ideological hegemony of the Norwegian state, that denied the legitimacy of his deeply held views.

His attack, after all, was not on a mosque but on the supporters of a political orthodoxy and a didactic ideology that, he believed, was doing everything in it’s power to suppress his reality.

Jonathan Bagley
July 28, 2011 at 15:49

I completely agree. I’m waiting for such an analysis to appear in one of
the broadsheets. There were two pieces in the Times last Friday which hinted
at some of the points you make, but most journalists behave like star-struck
teenagers when confronted with anything Scandanavian.

Andrew Duffin
July 27, 2011 at 10:14

“ostensibly to protect their children from Somali drug dealers and
rapists.”

Perhaps they really are protecting their children from Somali drug dealers
etc? Just saying.

It seems to be that the Scandinavian dream, as upheld by all sorts of
lefties in the UK who don’t really know how it works unders the covers, can
only continue as long as they have a fairly homogeneous population of peacable
people who share the same values, play by the rules and know how to go on.

As soon as they have a significant number of residents who are not
peacable, don’t know how to go on and refuse to learn, and will not play by
the rules – as has now happened in Norway and Sweden – expect trouble.

And trouble they are getting.

Hysteria July 26, 2011 at 11:59

I agree – but to the point
“Quite how he made the journey from ranting
about it down the pub and on blogs to being a contemptible murderer of unarmed
civilians is another question.”

One has to start asking the question – in a “democratic” system, when the
ONLY recourse to make a change is the ballot box, and demonstrably has got us
to where we are – what is the alternative. ??

I am not advocating the slaughter of innocents but am genuinely interested
in what is an effective alternative approach. I can think of plenty of
examples where violence seemed to work (Russian revolution, Hitler, Vietnam,
American War of Independence, N Ireland) and only one where supposedly
peaceful protest worked (Ghandi – and how many millions died during
partition?)

Matt
Wardman July 26, 2011 at 14:27

UKUncut and friends are one example.

The belief put forward is that “democracy has failed” and that
“traditional demonstrations have failed”, so ‘we need something else’ –
being direct action.

Leaving aside the cracked logic – that they are trying to turn aside the
policies of a Goverment that won an election a few months before, it is an
alternative.

I’d also point to the similar direct action of Greenpeace etc, which
requires them to perceive their own opinions to be above the law in order to
break it, and that there is a history of such actions changing the law.

The difference is that one is concerned not to hurt others (in principle
if not quite always in practice), and the other sets out to hurt them.

For myself, I’d also assert my right to break the law in extremis on a
personal level (eg might be a court requiring disclosure of a source or
unpublication of a report), but then the deal is that you take the
consequences.

On Peaceful Protest working, consider Eastern Europe and the end of
Communism, also perhaps Eqypt, and Burma (Aung Sang Suu Kyi?), but these –
as your Ghandi eg – are not in democratic systems.

Democratic systems? I can think of small-scale stuff – petitions and so
on, also – maybe – the Forests thing last year. There are probably plenty of
others.

Spiral Architect
July 26, 2011 at 11:23

The fact is that this nutter has been wound up by the constant lying and
hypocrisy of his totalitarian leftist state, and by the sheep-like countenance
of his fellow Norwegians who have been hood-winked into accepting the
development of a leftist Utopia by stealth.

A few decades ago his government decided it would be best for his country
to adopt a leftist policies and used lies to introduce and justify them, and
money to keep the populace ‘happy’.

He probably feels just as angry and powerless as many Britons do about
being rail-roaded into the EU, having to assimilate too many immigrants in too
short a time and being force-fed dishonest climate-change nonsense. All this
whilst being told by the BBC that everything is OK as MPs fill their pockets
with stolen cash.

As the left stifles free debate, he probably feels that trying to engage
with people who have pre-determined the nation’s fate is utterly
pointless.

Quite how he made the journey from ranting about it down the pub and on
blogs to being a contemptible murderer of unarmed civilians is another
question.

It is a little surprising that there have not been more of such events –
what will not be surprising though is the likely response of governments,
prompted by leftist media, to clamp down on free speech.

SadButMadLad
July 26, 2011 at 11:53

It is not surprising that more of these events have happened.

Contrary to what politicians and others in the state apparatus think (and
try and make us think), the vast vast majority of the population are not
serial killers rampant on murdering everyone who disagrees with them on
political grounds. It is actually very hard to get people to kill others in
cold blood. When it happens it is usually down to emotions which is why
nearly all murders are committed by people who know their victims.

Spiral
Architect July 26, 2011 at 12:58

To clarify – a huge bomb and a pre-planned massacre is certainly
surprising.

However, I do find it surprising that more people have not ‘cracked’
and ‘gone postal’ on a far smaller scale.

As ‘Hysteria’ mentions, what happens when the ballot box doesn’t work?
What happens when the government and media do not allow a proper
debate?

I believe that the feeling of helplessness morphs into resentment and
rage.

To ‘make the journey’ to act in the manner Breivik did requires a very
deranged mind, but I am not so sure that others have not been on the brink
of smaller outrages.

Eleanor ‘andcart
July 26, 2011 at 10:50

I’m surprised they didn’t shoot him, but I’m glad they didn’t. It’s the
only thing about these awful events that actually impressed me.

JuliaM July 26,
2011 at 11:18

I thought they shot him in the leg?

boulay July 26, 2011 at 08:39

interestingly he has changed terrorism as well. any nutters and terrorists
will look at the effectiveness of his method and copy it anywhere.

you no longer need to have a cell and support network which inevitably
increases your chances of being caught because of online chatter or
stupidity.

just one man, a decoy and some nifty weaponry in the right place can be
more effective then a coordinated attack on the london transport system.

to me that is one of the most worrying aspects of this.

JuliaM July 26,
2011 at 05:34

“But the above words are not mine, but the opening remarks of Anders
Behring Breivik in his “manifesto”, 2083 A European Declaration Of
Independence. “

Which the authorities released in its entirety, apparently unedited. Yet
then insisted his hearing should be closed to all, and he be held
incommunicado, for fear he’d pass ‘coded messages’ to his shadowy, sinister
co-conspirators.

So, how do they know there are no coded messages in the Manifesto?

john malpas July 26, 2011 at 02:11

saying he is a nutter is trying to deny that assasination has an effect –
he is unusual in his target but it will still stir things up. The regime will
change.One way or another.

Matt
Wardman July 25, 2011 at 23:14

This is a random test of a new feature.

JuliaM July 26,
2011 at 05:34

I’d say ‘It works!’ but I can’t see what it did…

Engineer July 25, 2011 at 21:22

I’m beginning to wonder how many of the ‘developed West’s’ problems are
down to the dawning realisation that America and Europe are up to their oxters
in debt, and people are looking for someone to blame. For some on the
political left, it’s the ‘evil bankers’, for others it’s immigration, for
others it’s incompetent governments.

The answer is quite simple; stop spending it and start earning it – but
saying that will be a lot easier than getting it to happen.

One thing’s for sure – murdering your countrymen, for whatever excuse,
isn’t going to solve any problems.

wh00ps
July 25, 2011 at 19:48

Hmmm. It troubles me. Something about this stinks, but I can’t for the life
of me figure out what. The most charitable solution I can come up with is that
he was hoping his actions would trigger some kind of largr event (a bit like
Charlie Manson) that would lead to his aims being realised- from what I’ve
read, this was his aim.
what bothers me most is that such an obviously
intelligent man could believe that it would work.

JuliaM July 26,
2011 at 05:35

What’s that old quote about some ideas being so intrinsically daft only
the intelligent could believe them…?

Gildas the Monk
July 25, 2011 at 19:09

A most interesting analysis. Of course he is a nut, but why he is a nut is
worth thought…

John B July 25, 2011 at 16:41

Besides being utterly tragic and warped, this is very interesting in a
horrifying method.
What Breivik has done in an extremely masterful, one
could say satanic, sort of way is to delegitimise independent thought as a
measure for realistic appraisal of reality.
His words, to the extent you
quote them, make reasonable sense.
Here is someone who has thought for
himself and somehow drawn the conclusions to act as he has done.
You see
what happens if you think for yourself instead of following the safe party
line?
Dangerous, extremely dangerous. Perhaps it should be banned?

Span
Ows July 25, 2011 at 20:03

Dangerous, extremely dangerous. Perhaps it should be banned?

Never you fear: they’re working on it.

Ed P July 25, 2011 at 16:00

Western so-called democracies beware – those denied a voice resort to
violence.
It’s just the same in the UK – the puppets, sorry politicians,
are just mouthpieces for the “(Bilderberg) cabal of financiers &
industrialists who make the decisions behind the scenes.”

Eleanor ‘andcart
July 25, 2011 at 15:48

Sadly, I have to agree with you. The whole thing is disturbing me way
beyond some raving nutter, which he undoubtedly is.
But so far, my opinion
is not getting much support.

philip walling
July 25, 2011 at 14:13

Trenchant analysis and quite true.
Maybe one could just add the
berserker strain in Norsemen.