08-01-2011, 10:47 AM
From Breivik's "manifesto"
Breivik is notable for jettisoning all traces of ideology: explicit mentions of race theory and any concern for orientalist or internationalist "engagement" with the East. The entire edifice and basis of European nationhood is supported solely on the basis of a left-right dichotomy. The left-right dichotomy is sufficient to attack Islam, and it can even incorporate those elements which confounded Hitler such as the (purported) Semitic origin of the Aryan Christ or the need to establish purity of race, maintain elaborate race migration theories, and postulate scytho-ruski incursions to the east when the more formative aryan ones fail, etc. As such, Beivik's use of just the left-right dichotomy renders mute several of the justificatory ideology questions which plagued his fore-runners (and even the likes of Dienekes and his brand of sidekicks including one "Unz foundation fellow" of Bengali muslim extraction (these have suddenly "gone agnostic" on a number of "key questions" and timelines have been contracted to the post-christ period).
For Breivik, the left is constituted solely in relation to domestic issues, and their internationalist role in projecting Euro soft power is not acknowledged. Possibly because there are no remaining pagans to demonize in Europe, understanding of the left-right, good-cop-bad-cop routine is compromised among the lay population, unlike in target societies like India where the left and the "right" (Monotheists) are openly allied at both elite and lay levels. in India, the left-right interpretative framework casts Hindus as just another ideo-group rather than as nativ heathens. Thus Breivik's "endorsement" has prevented a framework for interpretation of the Hindus grievances against both the monotheism of Islam and Christianity.
Breivik has shed ideological deadweight and baselined at a "heathen cultural level" where the euro-imperialist deeds of genocide and their relation to "belief" can be nullified by simply claiming so. In this he is very similar to the rascal pope, benedict, who really does not give a damn about jesus but does care about "Europe". No justification of unified Europe (within Christendom) is required as in times past; this is already the commonplace notion after 2000 years of forceful "unification" by the Church. Submerged concerns for the possible Orientalist origins of the unifying ideology and the dependence of the "aggrandizing" self-image (which is independent, declared, obvious, non-relational, non-negotiable, revelatory, and self-professed) upon an orientalist mirror image (which is irrational, etc) have also been taken care of by Breivik, by refusing to "specualte" upon Orientalist lines.
I thought it was generally agreed that the Islamist-Christist fight in Europe was a respite for Hindus and should be encouraged. With Hitler's tantrum, india progressed to Freedom. Then why the unease with the modernist hitler Breivik. Is it because he has turned the muslims into "jews" and given them a lever for further aggrandization? Hitler's nemesis the jews never impinged upon India, but the Muslims are our shameless tormentors. ..............
Quote:If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past." (p. 1345)
Breivik is notable for jettisoning all traces of ideology: explicit mentions of race theory and any concern for orientalist or internationalist "engagement" with the East. The entire edifice and basis of European nationhood is supported solely on the basis of a left-right dichotomy. The left-right dichotomy is sufficient to attack Islam, and it can even incorporate those elements which confounded Hitler such as the (purported) Semitic origin of the Aryan Christ or the need to establish purity of race, maintain elaborate race migration theories, and postulate scytho-ruski incursions to the east when the more formative aryan ones fail, etc. As such, Beivik's use of just the left-right dichotomy renders mute several of the justificatory ideology questions which plagued his fore-runners (and even the likes of Dienekes and his brand of sidekicks including one "Unz foundation fellow" of Bengali muslim extraction (these have suddenly "gone agnostic" on a number of "key questions" and timelines have been contracted to the post-christ period).
For Breivik, the left is constituted solely in relation to domestic issues, and their internationalist role in projecting Euro soft power is not acknowledged. Possibly because there are no remaining pagans to demonize in Europe, understanding of the left-right, good-cop-bad-cop routine is compromised among the lay population, unlike in target societies like India where the left and the "right" (Monotheists) are openly allied at both elite and lay levels. in India, the left-right interpretative framework casts Hindus as just another ideo-group rather than as nativ heathens. Thus Breivik's "endorsement" has prevented a framework for interpretation of the Hindus grievances against both the monotheism of Islam and Christianity.
Breivik has shed ideological deadweight and baselined at a "heathen cultural level" where the euro-imperialist deeds of genocide and their relation to "belief" can be nullified by simply claiming so. In this he is very similar to the rascal pope, benedict, who really does not give a damn about jesus but does care about "Europe". No justification of unified Europe (within Christendom) is required as in times past; this is already the commonplace notion after 2000 years of forceful "unification" by the Church. Submerged concerns for the possible Orientalist origins of the unifying ideology and the dependence of the "aggrandizing" self-image (which is independent, declared, obvious, non-relational, non-negotiable, revelatory, and self-professed) upon an orientalist mirror image (which is irrational, etc) have also been taken care of by Breivik, by refusing to "specualte" upon Orientalist lines.
I thought it was generally agreed that the Islamist-Christist fight in Europe was a respite for Hindus and should be encouraged. With Hitler's tantrum, india progressed to Freedom. Then why the unease with the modernist hitler Breivik. Is it because he has turned the muslims into "jews" and given them a lever for further aggrandization? Hitler's nemesis the jews never impinged upon India, but the Muslims are our shameless tormentors. ..............