Foreword: The author of this article, Adrian Morgan, spent many days reading the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik. ?He has in effect done the ?hard yards? for the reader and provides an exceptional, in-depth look at the Manifesto
The Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik
The Oslo killer, in his own words…
On Friday July 22, 2011, shortly before he primed the car bomb in Regjeringskvartalet, Oslo’s governmental administration district, Anders Behring Breivik posted his “manifesto” online. He then drove to the shore of Tyrifjorden lake, where he boarded a boat, dressed in a police uniform. The bomb had blown up in Oslo, killing seven people, by the time he arrived on the small island of Utoya, and proceeded to systematically shoot dead the young people attending a Labour Party summer camp.
When he placed his manifesto online, Behring also uploaded a video presentation which gave a simplified version of his beliefs.
Since Sunday July 24th, newspapers have made much of the contents of the manifesto, cherry-picking certain parts that reflected their own political stereotypes of a “right-wing extremist.” Breivik was described as a “Christian fundamentalist,” a man who hated Marxists and Muslims. It was theorized that Breivik had been influenced to kill by the writings of those whose views he quoted in his manifesto.
It was suggested that he had strong links with the English Defence League (EDL), and it was also suggested that he had links to other individuals in the UK. These reports led to hysterical speculations from bloggers and politicians. Authors quoted in the manifesto were openly portrayed as “extremists.” On Sunday morning, British prime minister David Cameron announced that he had asked security bodies and police to scrutinize the threats posed by groups such as the English Defence League.
There has certainly been much hyperbole in the media, and some of the claims about Breivik’s views appear to contradict each other. However, the manifesto, despite its author’s pretensions to be a valuable “tool” of precious knowledge that no “patriot” should be without, does contain contradictions. It is obvious that the manifesto, written by someone with a certain level of intelligence, aims to be seen as a “gift” to posterity. However, it also contains numerous flaws, flaws which – irrespective of the political outlook expressed in the text – appear to derive directly from the flawed and narcissistic personality traits of the author.
For example, Breivik (who calls himself Andrew Berwick) asks on Page 5 for all readers of the manifesto to distribute it to everyone they know. He maintains that the manifesto’s contents, which took him several years to complete, are of great significance:
“If we, the Western European Resistance, fail or become apathetic, then Western Europe will fall, and your freedom and our children?s freedom with it? It is essential and very important that everyone is at least presented with the truth before our systems come crashing down within 2 to 7 decades?.”
“? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans.”
Breivik introduces himself to the reader as a ?leader? though it is unclear whom he considers to be his ?followers.? In later parts of the manifesto, he maintains the need to be a reclusive loner, so as not to arouse suspicion and potentially be betrayed. True leaders do not need to hide in the shadows while they devise grubby assassination plots.
While maintaining a pompous and grandiose tone, boasting that he had formerly had 7,000 Facebook friends, he also emphasizes (on pp. 4 and 8) how the creation of the manifesto cost him more than 30,000 Euros ($U.S. 43,120):
“I?ve spent a total of 9 years of my life working on this project. The first five years were spent studying and creating a financial base, and the last three years was spent working full time with research, compilation and writing. Creating this compendium has personally cost me a total of 317 000 Euros (130 000 Euros spent from my own pocket and 187 500 Euros for loss of income during three years). All that, however, is barely noticeable compared to the sacrifices made in relation to the distribution of this book, the actual marketing operation;)”
It is strange to hear someone counting the cost of his own sacrifice, when one thinks of how he then chose to sacrifice the lives and futures of so many people. What is 30,000 Euros, when measured against a single life?
The Manifesto?s Structure.
The manifesto is titled ?2083 ? A European Declaration of Independence.? The number in the title apparently relates to the date by which Europe should have finally won its thirteen-year battle to institute a ?Coup d?Etat? and bring in a new regime (page 1286 of the document).
The manifesto is broken into three parts, which Breivik refers to as “books.” In parts one and two, Breivik discusses “The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe,” “Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began,” and “The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements).”
Most of the information derived from this manifesto that has featured in the media over this past week has been dealing with the details of the “right-wingers” whose work Breivik has copied in parts one and two. These accounts mainly concern the rising influence of Islamism on political bodies. The main content of these articles concerns these authors’ perceptions of the negative impact of having members of societies whose main ideology (Islam) is not geared for easy integration into European cultures. Despite media hysteria, there is nothing in these articles (by Fjordman and others) that incites violence against Muslims or any other individuals.
Some of the articles that Breivik reproduces in parts one and two relate to the history of Islamic imperialism, the Crusades (p. 143) and Islamic attempts to conquer European nations. Such attempts at conquest began with the Ummayad invasion of Spain in 711, closely followed by the Battle of Tours in 732, and continuing through to the attempts by Ottoman sultans to control and subjugate European territory.
Not all of the accounts of this time period are quoted from other writers. In part one, section 15 (pp. 147 – 157), it appears to be Breivik himself who is discussing the events of the Ottoman Empire, continuing the historical narrative long after the Ottoman empire officially collapsed. His sources are apparently derived here from an individual called Hay Brountsk, though I am unable to find any reliable online information about this person. Breivik maintains, somewhat disingenuously, that Turkey (officially secular from 1924 onwards, due to the actions of Mustafa Kemal, aka Ataturk) is still continuing the expansionist aims of the Ottomans.
Section 16 of part one is titled “Jus Primae Noctis – Institutionalised rape of Christians under the Ottoman Empire,” claiming that this was an Ottoman custom:
“Jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur is the right to sleep with a nubile (young and sexually attractive) servant before turning her over to her servant husband (the right by which a landlord may sleep first night with the bride of a newly married serf), although the custom may be avoided by the payment of a fine.”
The only quoted source for this section can be found here.
The information within relates only tangentially to the concept of the Ottoman seraglio (royal harem) as briefly mentioned in Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, which itself is based upon a play by Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais (1732 ? 1799), called ?Le Mariage de Figaro.? In no way does the cited document provide any historical evidence to suggest that Ottomans really practiced ?Droit de Seigneur.?
Breivik then goes on to append to such a brief reference his own expansive interpretations of this “Ottoman custom.” He claimed that Otttoman janissaries (Christian captives in battle who then were trained to be Ottoman soldiers) would choose who would have the right to deflower a virgin bride before her husband, on her wedding night.
However, there is NO historical evidence that the Droit de Seigneur ever took place anywhere in Christian countries or in Muslim Ottoman districts. Belief in such a custom had captured the imagination of 18th century France – Voltaire had written a comic play called Droit de Seigneur in 1762, and in 1783 Pierre Desfontaines wrote a comic-opera of the same name (the same year that Beaumarchais introduced the theme in his original play “The Marriage of Figaro”). This example should serve as a warning to anyone reading any part of Breivik’s “historical accounts.”
He has taken someone else’s germ of an idea, which already had no basis in verifiable historical reality and referred only to a fleeting mention in Mozart?s opera, and embellished it in his own terms. It is becoming increasingly troubling to me that I have noticed translations of Breivik’s “Declaration of Independence” being translated into other languages (as Breivik had asked), yet there seems no attempt to accompany such translations with critical analysis of the contents therein.
At the start of part one, Breivik gives his “analysis” of the roots of political correctness, claiming that it derives directly from Marxism, and suggests that exposing this (alleged) truth would be part of the means to overthrow it. However, the opening pages of the Manifesto, where Breivik attempts in his own words to provide a synthesis of how political correctness came into being, are rambling, full of references to various movements and individuals. Ultimately Breivik?s essays do not convince the objective reader of their truths.
Anyone can throw in references to individuals like Wilhelm Reich or Betty Friedan and the 1960s into an article, but to present a case objectively, there must be some causal connection made, not vague suppositions and digressions. Political correctness does appear to be undermining Western nations’ ability to define their own identity, and multiculturalism and cultural relativism are frequently used to imbue special value to “alien ideologies” while denigrating the privileged, colonial past of European nations. This much may be true, but to conclusively declare ? in specific terms – how this situation came to pass is, frankly, debatable.
Whether Breivik’s bugbears of political correctness and multiculturalism are a product of deliberate and conscious Marxism, or whether these are just ploys used by those who are already privileged to attempt to introduce some sense of “balance” and a redress of history’s perceived “wrongs and injustices” is always open to debate. People can see the effects of multiculturalism and political correctness, and one can attempt to analyze the motives and reasoning of those individual politicians and ideologues who loudly uphold the “virtue” of these two dogmas. It is far harder to nail down how and why multiculturalism and political correctness evolved, especially when argued in a philosophical or historical manner by someone who seems to have a cavalier approach to the factual details and nuances of history.
Breivik attempts to explain the origins of PC and multiculturalism, but despite mentioning various people and movements, I can see other contributing factors which are glaring by their omission.
Ultimately, the problem with polemical writings about history and philosophy and also cultural trends is the problem of the mindset of the author. Breivik is writing a manifesto to steer the reader to agree with the ultimate aim of his proposition – to bring down governments that do not uphold a particular set of beliefs that he upholds. His bias suffuses every part of his accounts, and there is an arrogance in his writing that presupposes that the readers will buy into all he says.
His treatment of the subject of “Droit de seigneur” is a case in point. Here he leaves real history and facts behind and engages in a confection of his own making, insulting the reader by assuming that he or she is too gullible to question and investigate such dogma. Reading the sections of part one and part two where Breivik narrates in his own voice, I am aware of being manipulated to “agree” with him, even though the “facts” that he arrays before the reader are rarely referenced or authenticated.
The passages in these two sections where Breivik introduces articles by others are more reliable, and more focused on their subject matter. These authors talk of “dhimmitude”, the condition of non-Muslims described (al-dhimma) in the Koran and hadiths, and other issues. The writing of Norwegian blogger Fjordman is more focused in its presentation than anything composed by Breivik. I do not always agree with Fjordman’s conclusions (he once called me a “ridiculous PC fascist” on a forum!) but he is a very good writer and he underpins his arguments with solid facts.
Similarly Robert Spencer’s views on how to address problems in the modern world may not always find resonance with others, but his books on Islamic history are works that are founded upon deep research and scholarship and are almost impossible to refute. There is one article in the first half of Breivik’s manifesto by Dr. Andrew Bostom (p. 122) that again is a valuable and informative piece. Dr. Bostom is a medical doctor, but he applies forensic methodology to his scrutiny of his sources. These works are included by Breivik to augment his manifesto, but their presence highlight the paucity of Breivik’s own understandings.
What is problematic for the reader is that the layout of the manifesto does not always make it clear where objective authors’ words come to an end, and Breivik’s own narration continues. Breivik has little humility, and it is possible that he chose to make it hard for the reader to make distinctions between his own rather facile narration of history and those of the more informed authors whose writings he quotes.
I am constantly reminded, as I read his interconnective narratives, of the lines by Alexander Pope:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Breivik introduces the notions of Knights Templars to his arguments. The Knights Templar – instituted originally as protectors of Christians in the Holy Land and elsewhere, but ultimately accused of heresy and outlawed – are convenient blank canvases onto which a small minority of antijihadist characters project their own personal hang-ups about their role as unrecognized heroes. Breivik snugly fits the mold of a self-mythologizing hero manqu?, a self-proclaimed misunderstood figurehead who assumes that historians of future ages will eventually re-examine his case, prove his arguments right and redeem him.
History will hopefully see him for what he is – a narcissist, a false prophet and above all, a slaughterer of innocents.
I am including with this article parts one and two of Breivik’s manifesto, as a pdf document. This in no way should be taken as an endorsement of Breivik’s writings. I hope that those who will read these parts will be able to distinguish between Breivik’s flawed perspectives and plagiarisms and the more lucid essays by those authors whose work is contained within.
I have deliberately avoided including Part Three of Breivik’s manifesto in the pdf document, as it includes enough details to make it potentially dangerous to the public, should it fall into the wrong hands.
Part Three: A strategy of Warfare
The largest section of the document (pp 766 – 1518) is the third part, which deals very specifically with Breivik’s plans for revolution/war. This is the most difficult part to present to the public, as it suggests means by which weapons could be obtained, and offers up a strategy for warfare. Some of his recommended body armor was purchased from Ebay. He recommends using a combination of drugs on a “mission,” which is disturbing, considering he was on drugs, probably these same drugs, when he murdered the victims on Utoya island. He writes on page 859:
“Complete Lokis Armour is heavy indeed but don?t forget that as a Justiciar Knight you have trained for months for one single mission. In addition a Justiciar Knight should always be in the middle of a steroid cycle and take an ECA stack capsule 20 minutes prior to the initiation of the mission (ephedrine, caffeine, aspirin stack) which increases our strength and agility by 50-100% for 2 hours. A Justiciar Knight is thus better prepared than even the most hardcore SWAT operator in a majority of ways.”
A Justiciar Knight is described on p. 832 as a figure within the “Knights Templar” ( Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici or PCCTS, the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon). This relates to the modern order of “Knights Templar” that was apparently set up in 2002, and to which Breivik claims he belongs. The motto of the organization is said to be: “Martyrdom before Dhimmitude.”
Breivik estimates that there are between 15 and 80 Justiciar Knights in Western Europe, based upon (his own) estimates from 2008.
On pages 824 – 825, Breivik states:
“Any Justiciar Knight of the PCCTS is a person who fights the cultural Marxist/Multiculturalist Alliance with weapons, using unconventional methods. The PCCTS follows a political goal, and focus attacks on the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist government, the MA100 political parties or any individuals who are categorised as a category A or B traitor.
PCCTS?s will use guerrilla warfare against MA100 political parties and individuals who directly or indirectly support the ?cultural Marxist/Multiculturalist Alliance?. Our method of choice is sabotage operations or the use of shock attacks against concentrations of category A and B traitors throughout phase 1 and 2.
Our objectives also include the aim of radicalising Muslims through strategic attacks on their communities. This will contribute to escalate the conflicts and create increased polarisation which will serve our interests.
“We intend to assist in future militia building, clandestine activities, even coup attempts (phase 2 and 3 objective) with the intention to replace the sitting regimes with cultural conservative governments.”
On page 853, Breivik warns, with some deree of logic:
Do not involve your ego by boasting about your success, operation or entering into a ?competition? with other patriots. As a Justiciar Knight, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing sensitive information to outsiders (whether they may sympathize with your core principles or not). I estimate that approximately 50% of all armed resistance fighters are are arrested and incarcerated before they even get the chance to execute their mission due to their incompetence in relation to their total lack of discretion.
The car bomb that went off in Regjeringskvartalet,Oslo, apparently comprised ammonium nitrate. This fertilizer component has been seen as an explosive-du-jour of some jihadists. It was used by Timothy McVeigh to bring down the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma in 1995. Breivik described himself as a “geofarmer,” and through this cover he was able to purchase this material in large quantities.
Section 3: 162 of the manifesto (page 1491) is titled “A short introduction to agriculture and surface mining ? creating the cover,” and states:
“A short introduction to small scale farming
The following short introduction is presented in order to prepare the Justiciar Knight for the fertiliser acquisition phase of his operation. Justiciar Knights will establish a cover and must therefore learn the very minimum about agricultural practices. You must learn enough about agriculture in order to pass any scrutiny checks the fertiliser clerk may present in the form of questions. You must learn to think, dress and act like a farmer and become confident through study of agricultural practises and your agricultural cover.”
The last part of the document shows photographs of Breivik dressed in various guises, as combat operative, as romantic lover, as freemason, as decorated soldier. These images seem to be presented as avatars of how he saw himself. They were also presented cynically, in the full knowledge that these images would be the ones that the press would use to portray him in newspaper articles and on television screens around the world. The presentation of these images, like the entire manifesto itself, is an exercise in vanitas.
These pictures, carefully posed, are an extension and reflection of the shallowness of Breivik himself, as is the entire text of his narration. The obsession with Knights Templar is just another exercise in self-preening and romanticizing himself. To those people who are genuinely opposed to the introduction of sharia law and the ideology of armed jihad, Breivik attempts to present himself as a Charles Martell, a John Sobieski or a Jean de Valette, a hero fighting the “good fight” against those who seek to overthrow Western civilization.
The fantasy elements of Breivik?s worldview can be found in the semi-marketing prose in which he extols the ribbons and regalia that may be offered or sold to potential Knights Templar (p. 1088) A red ribbon, for example, denotes a ?Distinguished Destroyer of cultural Marxism Commendation.? There is advice on uniforms that could be worn, and from page 1113 onwards, he describes the initiation rituals and ordination of a latter-day Templar. The initiation is important because, he states:
?The purpose of the rite is to create and formalise your commitment to the cause of the PCCTS, Knights Templar. You are also literally making a blood pact with the other side; with your ancestors, with past martyrs and with God. You are offering them a central part of your very being in exchange for the gift of immortality and a place in the eternal kingdom. You pledge allegiance to the principles of the PCCTS, Knights Templar, to fellow Justiciar Knights, to your people, the wishes of your ancestors and to God. Your oath will commit you.?
At the rite itself, there should be a skull, an altar and a sword, and the candidate should wear best clothing at the rite, i.e. a ?European suit? and also white gloves. The ritual should be done by candlelight, preferably with a circle of other Justiciar Knights. All of this obsession with dress-up and silly rituals and blood-oaths is supposed to recreate an authentic commitment in the soul of the initiate that he has now become ? like the ?leader? Breivik – a modern-day Knight Templar. The truth is far removed from this. Breivik is no hero, nor is he the instigator of a new or revived cult.
As someone who is appalled by Islamism, I am more disgusted by Breivik who had no excuse to behave in the way he did. As I mentioned on an internet radio show last Friday, I can now “just about understand” the concept of the jihadist suicide bomber. Such an individual believes that through killing and maiming others, he or she will go to Heaven, there to be rewarded with 72 virgins, houris, pearly boys or raisins. It is an illogical and morally disgusting belief, but it is one that the perpetrator of the atrocity believes, and one that various ideologues of Islamism condone.
Anthropologically, when people would run amok in southeast Asia, killing others, it was a form of suicide. The person who would carry out such an act would first ritually wash and then engage in slaughter, knowing that the only end to the actions would be for others to engage and kill that person. When school shooters at Columbine and other establishments, and those individuals who “go postal” start killing, they usually expect to be shot, or they terminate the killing spree by shooting themselves.
Breivik hedged his bets, and in the event of his being being killed on his ?mission?, he posted his manifesto and his video online. But he appears to have had no intention of killing himself. The person who kills himself at the end of a murderous rampage at least accepts that his life will thereafter have no meaning and purpose. Such an individual may feel a martyr, and considers that shooting himself may hope to leave a question amongst the survivors of “Why did Bill kill his work colleagues? What pressure was he under?”
Breivik leaves no such questions. His rambling self-justifications in his manifesto are not those of a willing martyr. They are those of a man who has convinced himself that, with a few gunshots, he can bring on the start of a global war that will ultimately rout Islamism from Europe?s lands. He seems to picture himself as a latter-day Gavrilo Princip, whose shots in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 brought about the Great War of 1914-1918. Where the Serbian saw Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian emir, as the target of his bullets, Breivik chose Jens Stoltenberg, prime minister of Norway, as the target of his car bomb.
The smile upon Breivik’s face as he was driven to court shows a satisfied smile, a smirk of someone who has achieved his ambition. Breivik failed to kill Jens Stoltenberg, but he did succeed in wounding the families of those who died, particularly those of the young people on a Labor Party summer camp on Utoya.
The young people that Breivik shot, some aged only 14, had their whole lives ahead of them. Breivik has not started a war waged between the forces of multiculturalism, Marxism and Islamism on one hand, against virtue and common sense on the other. In many ways he has closed down debate.
His lawyer suggests that Breivik is mad. He is certainly not a normal human being. He believes himself to be superior to others, in what seems to be a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder.
The anti-jihad movement does, regrettably, attract a small number of narcissists and fantasists. Some of these are mere exploiters of the situation who claim to have special ?knowledge? that makes them valuable to the defense of their nation, or who believe that by being holders of dynamic information they will have the wherewithal to sign off on a lucrative book deal. Among these individuals, there are also one or two people who sadly believe that they are crusader knights, who are ready to oppose Islamism in some grand cosmic conflict between Good and Evil.
Breivik belongs to the last category, but by the standards of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, his claim to be a hero would not pass muster. Breivik is a phony.
He proves his hypocrisy and shallow insincerity by writing on page 826 of the manifesto that:
?We train to kill but that doesn?t mean we love violence. We use violence only for self defence, as pre-emptive actions and as a last option.?
The youths enjoying their summer camp on Utoya were killed at close range by Breivik. In one instance he was reported to be laughing as he murdered. The young male and female victims were not attacking him. They were scared, traumatized human beings who had nowhere to run, whose pleas for mercy were ignored. There was no ?last option? before him. Breivik chose to kill in cold blood and his smirk, recorded by cameras near the Oslo courthouse, show that he has no real remorse for what he has done.
Terrorism is terrorism, and it should never be condoned or eulogized. No innocent person, no matter their political affiliation, should be treated as ideological enemy or sacrificial lamb. There can be no moral or political justification for killing such people. The fact that Breivik did just that proves that he is neither hero, antihero nor martyr. He is nothing more than an evil and deluded fanatic.
His deliberate posting of his manifesto immediately before carrying out his deadly deeds shows that he intended to promote himself to others, to convince the gullible that he has a higher goal, and a historically-justified moral purpose. This is nonsense. In short Anders Behring Breivik, along with his deluded rambling manifesto, is a phony.
Adrian Morgan is a British-born writer and artist. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society. Since June 2010, he has been the Editor of Family Security Matters.