Judeo-Christian mobilization: plot story

In my article «Judeo-Christian mobilization» (2010) I came to the conclusion, that European Muslims will quite soon face the phenomenon of cultural and political mobilization under Judeo-Christian banner. This mobilization will be targeted against Islam.

Currently we may notice this process in various areas, from mass media’s hysteria on default of the multiculturalism to political success of antiIslamic parties.

Massacre, organized by Andreas Bering Breivik in Norway evidences that this mobilization has got one more dimension. We have faced the antiIslamic terror that is direct and immanent danger.

It is obvious, that all current events are units of one chain and Breivik is neither a lone psychopath, nor neo-Nazi marginal. Indeed, his act is extreme, but quite logical consequence of Judeo-Christian mobilization. 1518 pages of Breivik’s Manifesto (2083: a European Declaration of Independence) crush any doubts – we have met the new phenomena that origins directly form Judeo-Christian discourse.

Bloody humanism of the Modern

Notwithstanding its compiler nature, Breivik’s Manifesto is quit mature work that can bring honor not only to the single author, but to the think tanks and deserves serious analyzes.

Certainly, while analyzing the Manifesto we should keep in mind circumstances of it’s “declaration”. No only for the humanitarian reasons, but rather to understand what phenomena we have faced and to distinguish between declaration and nature.

Reading the Manifesto chapter to chapter I always returned to the idea of dramatic disproportion between quite serious intellectual level of this work and primitive, barbarian way of its positioning to the society. Frankly, the quality of Manifesto is high enough to start a serious discussion, especially among Breivik’s target groups, including «cultural conservatives».

One may response, that without bloody PR, the Manifesto will never get a fraction of its current publicity, on the other hand due to this publicity the work is non grata in respected intellectual society.

In my perspective, Breivik unintentionally demonstrated the true nature of his own declarations.

So, who is Mr. Breivik? Neither a neoNazinor Christian fundamentalistThis classification Is totally wrong. Mr. Breivik is indeed a true humanist, raised on ideals of Renaissance and the Modern.

The values of Modern are under Breivik’s protection against «Islamсretrogrades». And multiculturalists and “cultural Marxists” open the gate to the barbarians. It does not really matters that Breivik is literally amazed only by Renaissance, but does not directly speak of it’s twin brother Modern. Modern it the final reality that backs and determines all values of the Norwegian Templar: secular society, democracy, capitalism, nation state.

Breivik is quite consecutive – having assumed that Moredn (in Breivik’s terminology “cultural conservatism”) could be transformed into something unacceptable for him, Breivik sees the final solution in civil war and tactical nuclear attacks in Europe, deportation of millions, chemical and biological “liberation” of some territories (Islamic Bosnia, Albania, East and West Anatolia).

And this all goes under appeal towards humanism and human rights protection. Such cover shall not mislead us, starting from Jacobins terror, through two world wars, to Hiroshima, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq,millions and millions of murdered, raped, wounded, trampled, wretched, every action was undertaken under banner of «Liberte, Egalite en Fraternite» and almost always in order to protect this values against «reaction and retrogrades». That is the reality of Breivik’s democracy, humanism and New Renaissance.

European Muslim’s can only dream about the level of religious autonomy, that is recognized and protected on the territories of Islam in favor of Judaic and Christian minorities. As the real democratic alternative, Breivik offers baptizing or deportation to Muslim minorities in Europe.

Turks, according to Breivik, are responsible for genocide of Armenians and Greeks in Anatolia, (he is silent about terror of Armenian and Greek guerillas against Muslim citizens and humanitarian catastrophe of Muslims in Balkans, that precede tuff reaction of Turks). As a reasonable answer Breivik suggests «humanitarian» mass extermination of Turks today.

Muslim immigrants are responsible for crime in Europe? To get rid of that Breivik suggests tactical nuclear bombing of European cities, perhaps under assumption that this strikes will damage only Muslims and multiculturalists.

However it is quite naive to take this seriously after massacre in Utoeua. During almost two hours he has being systemically exterminating dozens of Norwegian teenagers. Besides here we can not blame the blind bomb attack, that is not distinguishing victims; otherwise, Breivik killed everyone “personally”.

But why?! Because all these teenagers are, in Breivik’s opinion, accomplices of Muslim immigration to Europe, and it does not matter if victims are Whites and “cultural Christians” themselves. Bloody face of dogmatic humanism came here in person – having started with idea of exterminating of reputable multiculturalists (politicians, scientists, artists), Breivik finished with holocaust of armless teenagers, whose political position could be changed several time in the next couple of years.

Even “jihadists”, who are declared to be the cancer of this universe, will be more tolerate to their nation. It is hard to imagine the Chechen guerillas killing dozens of Muslim teenagers at some pro-federal camp.

Summarizing, call for nuclear-chemical Armageddon and massacre of Norwegian teenagers under humanitarian banners, reminds me old time Soviet joke “we will burry in hell everyone, who doubts our peacefulness».

So it is not surprising, that when somebody speaks about progress and democracy, on the horizon we notice concentration camps and gas furnaces. The same today, nuclear bombs become main means of support for “cultural conservatism”. Let us thank Breivik for the shocking demonstration of this paradox.

Breivik – national democrat

What is the philosophic background of Breivik’s ideas?

In fact, Breivik is a classical example of national democrat (nazdem). This ideology is currently on rise in Europe and Russia. Breivik’s “Cultural conservatism” is a typical right version of liberalism. Breivik shares all its basic concepts, like secularism, capitalism and nation state, but points out, that they should fit within frames of classical Modern, i.e. by cultural frames (this is the origins of his «cultural conservatism»).

From this angle it becomes clear, why Breivik’s golden century of Europe lays neither in the medieval ages (as for the Christian fundamentalist), nor in 20-40th of the XX century (as for the classical Nazi), but in the first decade after the second World War, when the “barbarian national socialism” was destroyed, and “holy” Churchill declared cold war to the communism.

Manifestо starts with the ideal of 50th – secular society but still based on Christian cultural values, capitalism, but not global, democracy, but ethnically homogeneous. Who is responsible for destruction of this idyll? According to Breivik, it is so called «cultural Marxists». This definition covers left scientists and artists, who have initiated sexual revolution in the West, as well a postmodern and multiculturalism.

To keep it serious, every true European traditionalist and conservative revolutionary will never share position of Norwegian terrorist. Besides latter term although occurs several times in Manifesto, should not mislead, as Breivik’s ideas have nothing in common with European Conservative Revolution.

For European traditionalists the point of no return for collapse of Christian West certainly lays not in thе 70th of ХХ century (This period Julius Evola described as total and final death of the West) but ratherXIV century, i.e. appearance of Modern and consolidation of future nation states. Breivik’s favorite Renaissance in the eyes of European traditionalists is time of apotheosis of break-up of the Tradition.

Unfortunately Breivik did not study the real Marx theory. Otherwise, he would know, that according to Marx, the objective reallite determines the consciousness, forces of production determine production relations, basis determines superstructure. It simply means, that European postmodern can only be the result of new life style, but not it’s reason.

But what is the reason then? According to real conservative Oswald Spengler (the author of famous “The Decline of the West”), the reason is transformation of the West from the living culture of nature to lifeless techno-financial civilization of global megalopolises. Besides, ancient Rome offers the very similar example, where we lack “cultural Marxists” but have all other «fascinations» of globalization, multiculturalism and consumer society.

In Breivik’s perspective, the major mistake of western Tories, leaded by Churchill is the lack of decommunisation after successful denazification.

Again Breivik does not know that in former socialistic states there was no multiculturalism. Communist Party provided separate existence of various ethnical cultures. There was no mass migration in the USSR and Eastern Europe and each ethnic group have lived on its land. Simultaneously, internationalism was the official ideology.

On the other hand, conservative policies from Adenauer to de Gaulle and Tatchier could not prevent babylonisation of Europe. Declarations newer determine nature of the culture. It is the development trend, thatforms the reality. Both Marxists (not the mythical “cultural” but real) and National Socialists understood this simple truth. So why German Nazis are as bad as Marxists for Breivik? Because they have attacked inner sanctum of his «cultural conservatism» (we may also call it Jewish Modern) – capitalism and democracy.

Unlike many bourgeois nationalists, that exist in 20-th in Germany and whose failure Breivik counts for tragedy of Germany and Europe, National Socialists understood that formal victory of nationalist ideology without destruction of global capitalist civilization based on internationalfinancial capital is useless. According to the National Socialist the true nation state may be based only on organic socialism, the type of social feudalism. Otherwise, any nation state becomes the mask of transnational capital.

Breivik sees the alternative in special form of the capitalism that we may found in Taiwan. Japan and South Korea. In his opinion it is the existing Eden with democracy and capitalism, but without multiculturalism and migration. Interesting, that here he sings in unison with patriarch of Russian national democracy and national capitalism Alexander Sevastianov. However Sevastianov sees the reason of immunity of Asian tigers in their non-Judeo-Christian roots. So when Breivik presents Judeo-Christian values as the victim of the multiculturalism, Sevastianov points them to be the reason for the decline of Europe.

A system analysis, which is the weak point «right» ideologists, explains Asian phenomena via their subordinated role in international capitalist civilization. The same explanation works for Central and Eastern Europe, irrespective of multiculturalists there are not much immigrants. First, there is a direct connection between level of migration and level of involvement in global economy. Second, demographical situation is the other explanation, and it is much better in states with no Judeo-Christian roots and weak liberal tradition.

Judeo-Christian capitalist and democrat Breivik does not understand neither first, nor second point. As a result, he mixes contradicting calls for national homogeneity in European states with attacks on National Socialists, who tried to provide this homogeneity trough social revolution and confessions of love to Judeo-Christianity, which is actually responsible for current problems of Europe.

Mirage of «cultural Christianity»

Currently Judeo-Christian banner against Islam raise total strangers to all traditional values like German left ideologist Ralph Giordano or Dutch homosexual Geert Wilders.

Breivik’s case is more complicated. On one side, he confesses that he is not religious and is against Christian theocracy and supports secularism. On the other hand, unlike common liberals, Breivik advocates pro-Christian conservative program, limitation of feminism and sexual dissipation. What are reasons for such dualism and how these two paradigms can be mixed?

In his naive view, Europe in 70th is Christian democratic capitalist heaven until the barbarians, the “cultural Marxist” came and attacked traditional culture of the West. This attack made the Western lifestyle venerable to aggressive Islam. So it is logical, that crusade against Marxists and Muslims, that he had started on Utoeua, shall come in line with rebirth of Christian traditional values as they were in 50th – 70th.

In this scenario the unexpected “cultural Marxists” are the bad guys, but liberals are the alliances, if they are ready to give up multiculturalism.

This approach contradicts with the authentic Christian views – the Christian traditionalists from Donoso Kortes to Konstantin Leontiev positioned liberalism as the major enemy of Europe, more dangerous, than communists.

Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote: «Russia will be destroyed not by communists, not by anarchists but by damned liberals». This forecast is applicable also to the West.

Let’s not forget, that Breivik declared himself to be a freemason. Simultaneously he blames “cultural Marxists” in all sins although masonry has being fighting Church for centuries in favor of capitalism and democracy, that were not much respected in traditional western culture.

Today masonry somehow becomes defender of the Christianity. How could it happen? Simply because, having destroyed Christianity, they faced more powerful enemy – Islam. And it is quite difficult to attack Islam from the secular basis.

We can remember coquet of the Soviet government with the Church that have started exactly when Wehrmacht appeared in Moscow suburbs. Not surprising, that when the threat was over the government came back to its initial policy and Khrushchev brought new persecutions.

Leaders of Judeo-Christian mobilization against Islam prepare the same future for Christianity in Europe.

Breivik’s call for Christian renaissance in post-Marxist and post –Islamic Europe shall not mislead, because «New Renaissance» society shall coexist with «liberal zones» (megalopolises, inhabited by liberal alliances of “cultural conservatives”, but clean of cultural Marxists and Muslims).

Certainly Breivik is not even thinking on fighting against capitalism, he just wants to fit it within national and conservative limits.

For how long will the conservative-modern order survive in such circumstances? The answer may be found in modern European history, when traditional lifestyle was hacked by the global capital.

Obviously the hegemony of megapolises within the worlds international financial system is protected by Breivik. In this situation traditional Christian province will be under serious economic, cultural and political pressing, and that will bring us back to the current situation.

We may again conclude, that Breivik has nothing in common with conservative revolutionary, as he claims in Manifesto. His nuclear dreams of third world war are aimed to reinforce Modern without changing the basis. That is the exclusive circle for Europe.

Islam in Europe: liberal Zionist view

Not surprising, that liberal extremist Breivik sees the principle danger in Islam, that unlike his “conservative revolution» indeed is a true opposition for civilization of global capital. Breivik looks on Islam in light of liberal fundamentalism, cooked on the Zionist fire.

That is why Breivik’s nationalism (he declared himself to be a nationalist) is not self sufficient, but is only the weapon against Islam. Otherwise, even being in opposition towards Islam, Breivik would be more rational like the old school European nationalists, who divided migration problems and relations of Europe with Islamic world. And it would be then clear for him, that roots of European problems, roots of “cultural Marxism” do not lay in Islam, but in «Judeo-Christianity», that is widely advertised today by his Zionist friends.

It is obvious that decline of Europe is not caused by Islam, but Islam came to Europe because of this decline. Moreover, many Europeans recognize in Islam not the source of their problems, but the key of solution of these problems, the unexpected chance for rebirth and development.

However Breivik is not interested, a liberal, trained by Zionists, he apriory takes Islam as personal enemy that should be destroyed. As we have shown above, although he is not removing the fundamentalreasons of the Western crisis, his solution of Muslim problem is final and radical.

On this stage many readers may doubt weather there is any sense in taking single psychopath so serious. I would argue, that Breivik should be treated very seriously at least for three reasons.

First, Breivik is acting in a group of like-minded people. Taking in regard the self identification with masonry, we may not exclude that Breivik and his Manifesto are just visible part of big scenario of Judeo-Christian’s hawks (analogical to Turkish Ergenekon), that precedes establishing of death squadrons in Europe.

Second, it is ever worse if Breivik and Co are not tied with any elites. It means that ideas, that were adopted by Breivik can currently motivate young gifted Europeans (and Breivik is among them) for murder and self-sacrifice.

Third, although the Breivik’s plans for 2083 look like utopia, we are only at year 2011 now and life flows fast. Because Manifesto is aimed against European Muslims, it’s possible realization becomes the matter of life and death for European Muslims.

So the situation challenges us for deep analysis and adequate response.


Harun Sidorov, 2011

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *