Is Breivick an Anarchist?

July 25th, 2011 at 11:18 pm | 31 Comments |

| Print

Some in the media have leapt to identifying Anders Breivick’s ideology as “libertarian,” and as a Norwegian branch of the Tea Party. In truth, Breivick should be described as an anarchist. Anarchism is not the same thing as libertarianism. Libertarianism aims to maximize every individual’s potential for advancement, mainly (but not exclusively) through economic success. Anarchism, by contrast, is a purely anti-nomian impulse fueled by a wish to destroy the existing order.

Most tellingly, historically speaking, while libertarianism seeks to maximize individual liberty within a constitutional democracy, the fulfillment of anarchism is never a regime that enhances individual liberty, but instead a collectivist political and social order. It encourages individual violence in the present only to usher in this new order where liberty will be crushed. Thus, Bakhunin’s Anarchism led to Lenin’s Bolshevism. Early Nazi defector Walter Rauschning observed that the Nazis totally conscripted the anarchist movement in Germany. Libertarians want to build sky-scrapers. Anarchists want to blow them up.

Clearly this is also Breivick’s vision. Despite a superficial admiration for the Tea Party and other libertarian movements, his rambling 1500 page manifesto displays little interest in economic free enterprise or in individualism of any kind. The latter he interprets more as the decadence that has allowed “cultural Marxism” and “multi-culturalism” to to take over. His vision for the future is fascistic. Like the earlier fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s, he is not strictly speaking a mere nationalist (his own country and victim, Norway, does not even appear on his list of important sites for the coming revolution). Instead, he sees himself as “Pan-European,” the term of choice among many neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist movements throughout Europe. He wants an authoritarian and patriarchal order where social discipline and cohesion are restored. Like the earlier fascists, he is an admirer of blood and soil ethnic tribalism — hence his sympathy for the Serbs in their wish to exclude Muslims from their homeland and his criticism of the NATO operation to help the Muslims. The seemingly paradoxical combination of the blood and soil nationalism of autochthonous peoples with the universal appeal of pan-Europeanism goes back to the Fascist “international” of the 1940′s, where the SS, for instance, recruited from “Aryan” peoples all over Europe. The fascist vision for Europe, then and now, is of a kind of imperial league of autochthonous and rooted “peoples” at the same time knit together in monolithical totalitarian unity. Breivik terms it a “national and pan-European patriotic resistance movement.”

Speaking of Breivick’s championing of Serbian Slavic nationalism, I detect echoes in his views of the leading Russian “Eurasianist” ideologue Aleksandr Dugin, in many ways the hidden king of the new fascism in Europe as well as Russia. Breivick dreams of a “conservative revolution” for Europe, echoing Dugin’s call for a “revolution of archaic values.” Dugin wants Russia to return to its pre-modern “Eurasian” heritage of Slavic wholeness, echoing a standard motiff in European fascism, the longing for a fantasy version of the Middle Ages, to be found in the writings of Nazi ideologues like Goebbels and Himmler and in the Volkish writings of Heidegger in favour of the Third Reich. Breivick’s fascination with the “Knights Templar” and his fantasy of himself as a “commander” of that order recalls Himmler’s fantasies about the SS being the new incarnation of the “Teutonic Knights” of east Prussia. Common to both is the vision of a brotherhood of warriors making a stand for Europe against the hordes of the East.

Much is being made of Breivick’s “pro-Israel” stance in contrast with his hatred of Muslims. But, just as he is not a genuine libertarian, neither is he a genuine Zionist. On closer inspection, his pro-Israel stance is a version of fascist philo-Semitism. This is brought out by his strange remarks, reported in the Jerusalem Post, that the Jews of pre-war (meaning WW II) Europe had been “disloyal to Germany,” just as leftist, multi-culti Jews in Europe are disloyal to Europe today. Zionism, in his view, disabused the Israelis of those leftist illusions and spurred them to create Israel in the face of relentless centuries of Muslim persecution. Several things stand out here. First, he appears to endorse the preposterous view that Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews was somehow warranted by their “disloyalty” to Germany, whereas, of course, Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the Jews as a race regardless of their views, including everyone from Communists to holders of the Iron Cross, throne-and-altar conservatives and third generation Christian converts. While it is true that Jews were persecuted by some Muslim regimes or rulers for long periods, to downplay Nazi persecution in his account of why Israel came into being is a striking omission.

I believe that Breivick’s professed admiration for Israel is for an Israel that is precisely the embodiment of the kind of intransigent and homogeneous authoritarianism that he would like to see in Europe, the same kind of regime to which pre-war Jews were “disloyal” in Germany — certainly not the real Israel which, in its political diversity, includes many who embrace precisely the left-leaning views that he excoriates in Europe, and whose citizens have suffered mightily at the hands of Breivick’s mirror-image opposite counterparts in Jihadist terrorist movements. A weird kind of philo-Semitism was always a component of the earlier fascism. Hitler, Goebbels and Eichmann admired the Jews in an odd way because they attributed to them precisely the qualities of a master race to which they aspired themselves. Eichmann at one time even flirted with encouraging them to emigrate to their own new country. But this is not a healthy form of being in favour of Israel, and the same goes for Breivick’s alleged pro-Zionism.

Waller R. Newell is currently writing a book about the diffrerences between ancient and modern tyranny for Cambridge University Press. His previous books include What is a Man? 3000 Years of Wisdom on the Art of Manly Virtue, The Code of Man: Love, Courage, Pride, Family, Country and The Soul of a Leader: Character, Conviction and Ten Lessons in Political Greatness (Harper Collins).

Recent Posts by Waller Newell

31 Comments so far ↓

  • Watusie

    “in truth”…”on closer inspection”…etc. Nothing but variations on the theme of “no true Scotsman”. Coming from a man who, within weeks of 9/11, was writing articles claiming that Osama Bin Laden was a man of the left. I would laugh if it wasn’t so sick and twisted.

  • Bebe99

    Strange that the tactics of Breivick and the Tea Party are awfully similar just at the moment. Though different in scale, Breivic shot individuals, while the tea party is currently holding a gun to the collective head of the world economy in order to effect drastic change. The TP just haven’t fired yet. We will soon see if the Tea Party are anarchists after all.

  • MurrayAbraham

    Breivick an anarchist? Certainly not.

    There are many forms of anarchism but in broad terms, anarchism is the rejection of coercion and domination in all forms, including that of the priests and the plutocrats, which is hardly compatible with Breivick’s white supremacist ramblings.

    IMO Andrew Sullivan’s description of the Breivick’s views ( is much more apt than Newell’s twisted piece.

  • balconesfault

    from the bio: His previous books include What is a Man? 3000 Years of Wisdom on the Art of Manly Virtue, The Code of Man

    I’m reminded of “The Bro Code” on “How I Met Your Mother”

  • ProfNickD

    Newell is right on much of what he says about Breivick although I would say that Breivick is a Norwegian nationalist or, if you prefer, fascist, and hardly a libertarian or even an anarchist.

    In his “manifesto” Breivick says nothing about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, or freedom of commerce — all core tenants of libertarianism. Indeed, in his manifesto Breivick quotes extensively from the Unabomber for support of his anti-globalization and anti-trade position. He also quotes from the Turner Diaries, the racist novel set in a post-race war United States.

    Secular, race-based fascist terror largely died out after World War Two — in some places, it continued such as with Klan-based terror in the US until approximately the 1980s.

    Islamic terror is an ongoing manifestation of religious-based — not race-based — fascist terror and is an incredibly lethal phenomena, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the last decade alone. Religious terror has existed for two thousand years, from the Zealots in Roman-occupied Judea and Samaria, to the Assassins in Persia and Egypt, to the Thuggee movement in India, to the various al Qaeda permutations today.

    Left-wing terrorism largely died out after the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union — its rise was synergistic with the rise of global capitalism and industrialization.

    There is an interplay with the far Left (communist) and far Right (fascist) — both are opposed to modernity, capitalism, and trade, albeit for different reasons. The far Left accuses modernity of resulting in “oppression” of the poor while the far Right accuses modernity of destroying culture.

    Indeed, the Left has always excused or sympathized with fascist terror movements up to and including the conversion of several Baader-Meinhof and Japan Red Army members to Islam in prison.

    Regardless, it seems that secular fascist terror does still exist and Breivick’s terror spree is indicative of this. Breivick was opposed to Islam, not because Islam destroys human liberty (which of course it does) but because Islam is incompatible with his mythologized vision of a “pure” Norwegian society. No nationalist/fascist is accepting of foreign cultural influences whatever the source and Breivick is no different in this regard — it is a “volkish,” dreamy, primitive Norwegian community that Breivick wants, not a modern, industrialized and free one.

    • balconesfault

      Indeed, the Left has always excused or sympathized with fascist terror movements up to and including the conversion of several Baader-Meinhof and Japan Red Army members to Islam in prison.

      This appears to be a non-sequiter.

  • armstp


    I would take issue with your characterization of both Anarchism and Libertarianism.

    Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society.

    Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. So Anarchists are just the most extreme version of Liberatarianism.

    Your comment: “Libertarianism aims to maximize every individual’s potential for advancement, mainly (but not exclusively) through economic success.” only deals with economics, which is only one element of libertarianism, but not its central thought. Libertarianism is not really about economic success. It is only about the transfer of power from the state to the individual. That does not mean that it is about economic “success”. It is about liberty and freedom, not necessarily promoting “success”. In fact, you could argue that Libertarianism is about economic failure, as through history man has been much more economically successful when man works together through some form of government, but I will leave that for another argument on another day (it is why Neanderthals died out and Homo sapiens survived).

    Although I have not read all of Breivick writings, it seems that he does not talk about economics at all. I am not sure if he fits neatly in any box or under the label libertarian or its extreme version Anarchist. He seems closer to a fascist and clearly a racist, where fascist is defined as a authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation’s rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood. Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

    By the way there are element to fascism in the Tea Party, particularly with regard to their view on immigration, attitude toward opposing political views, the implied threat of violence (guns to rallies) and their view of the state dictating policy on social issues (gays, abortion, etc.). There are also clearly elements of racism in the Tea Party movement.

    • Primrose

      Well said armstp. I was puzzled by his description of both libertarianism and anarchism, since they didn’t sound like what I knew. Glad you took the time.

      I also don’t remember him being called a libertarian in the press, a far right racist yes. I think this is another attempt to deflect blame.

      Much as ProfNickD is claiming that far-right Fascists disappeared mainly after WWII, ignoring The John Birch Society, LePen, LaRouche, Pinochet, Franco, the neo-Nazi’s of Germany etc.

    • olhickry

      I think that your ideas that anarchism is a more extreme version of libertarianism would have been correct about ten/twenty years ago, especially because the group was less religious at the time. Sadly the socially libertarians seem to have fallen into obscurity for the loud voices on the right.

      I would argue that anarchism is not necessarily a more extreme version of libertarianism. Anarchism varies in terms of how much centralized structure there should be in society (see Bookchin’s libertarian municipalism). All versions, however, agree that any coordinating institution should not have the ability to wield coercive force (and should perhaps have rotating positions). An important point is that there are two political scales: economic and social. Anarchists are in favor of a freer society in both regards, whereas libertarians tend focus on the economic side of the spectrum. That modern libertarianism misses out on the fact that corporate power is as significant barrier to our personal freedoms as bureaucracy is a shame.

      This is a tangent, but I think it’s important to recognize that modern libertarians aren’t dumb, just easily misled by libertarian/religious moguls. They’re angry and lost and easy explanations/scapegoats is intellectually easier than analyzing all the complex dynamic roles of today’s various powers-that-be.

  • Daniel Greenfield: ‘In Defense of Robert Spencer’ | Five Feet of Fury

    [...] UPDATE: Waller Newell writes… Libertarians want to build sky-scrapers. Anarchists want to blow them up. [...]

  • jamesj

    No True Scotsman.

  • Tejas

    So now he’s an anarchist……… I was a little confused. It would seem that events such as this would inspire us to take pause and look at the parallels to our current ideological conflict(you know, maybe learn something). This is yet another in along series of BS mental exercises, it’s a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon for partisan morons. No need for introspection, it was their(fill in left/right/liberal/conservative, the choice is yours) fault. This may be the most convoluted, intellectually vacant article I have ever seen on this site. Better luck next time I guess.
    PS. I am generally impressed with the quality of content on FF

  • Steve D

    “libertarianism seeks to maximize individual liberty within a constitutional democracy”

    Where? Not here. First off, as so many on the right like to point out, we’re a democratic republic, not a democracy. Libertarians in the U.S. seem to want to preserve the liberty of businesses to rip off customers, the RIAA and MPAA to stifle freedom of speech, and bosses to treat employees like serfs and pay arbitrarily low wages, while dismantling any government structure that stands in their way. And, of course, your right to die if you can’t afford medical care. Then there’s the right to travel on private toll roads, the right to buy tainted food, the right to drink polluted water, oh, it’s just endless.

    If you have power to infringe on my liberty, you are a threat to me, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re the government or private. I tell ACLU backers that I’m not worried about having the government ransack my house, but private individuals. Likewise, I tell libertarians the government doesn’t prevent me from seeing YouTube videos, only corporations do. (Because, you know, I’m going to stitch together 200 YouTube clips and get a free copy of Harry Potter 7/2) The government doesn’t prevent me from accessing large areas of the West, private landowners do. The government doesn’t prevent me from marketing an innovative product, patent trolls do.

  • dugfromthearth

    “Libertarianism aims to maximize every individual’s potential for advancement, mainly (but not exclusively) through economic success.”

    This is the fig leaf of libertarianism: increasing everyone’s potential. Of course the ones pushing libertarianism are not interested in other people’s potential – they are interested in their actuality. The goal of libertarianism is a state which exists solely to preserve what they already have with the pretense that others could also achieve it.

    Is Breivick a libertarian – not in the modern American sense where libertarianism is simply an attempt to create a plutocracy.

    • Watusie

      I’ve never met a self-made man who is a libertarian – all of the libertarians I have known personally are white protestant males who benefited from inherited

  • Graychin

    There’s a pretty thin line between anarchy and libertarianism, but a big difference.

    Anarchists want to abolish government. But Libertarians want to “shrink government enough so they can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

    Big difference. Got it now?

  • jakester

    I am not much about doctrinaire stuff, but the author seems to be making a point. The libertarians are basically reactionaries, they want some sort of original 1780′s sort of government while living on the frontier. Anarchism eschews even that. Anarchism attracts very unstable destructive people who just want to destroy, hence many of them attacked the West while maintaining links & admiration to the far more repressive Red Communist regimes. I don’t think this guy is either, he is just a right wing nationalist type.

  • johnwilkins

    There is no anarchist philosopher or activist who would have supported the killing of children, ever. Some anarchists believed in political killings; others have joined in civil wars. But the only violence Anarchists may support (and not all do), is that in reaction to the perceived violence of the state. Yes, some anarchist teens engage in random acts of violence against property, but this is a far cry from taking away anyone’s life.

    The author then describes the murderer’s views toward the state, or a future state, as fascistic and authoritarian. Where are anarchists who have support either fascism or authoritarianism? There may be a loose relationship between “personal authoritarianism” and anarchism, but this does not reflect the ideal society that many anarchists have.

    The article lacks any historical or theoretical knowledge of anarchism, minimizing their historical antipathy toward Marxism, fascism, nationalism, Bolshevism, statism or organized religion. Perhaps it would be best if we decided not to justify, diminish or explain the murders away by attributing any kind of philosophy to the accused, but do what we can to stand with the victims as best we can, and work for for the good society that renders such acts unthinkable, and perhaps impossible.

  • Nanotek

    he self-identified as a right wing ideologue … you might have started there Newell

    anything to divert discussion from uncomfortable realities?

    “Much is being made of Breivick’s ‘pro-Israel’ stance in contrast with his hatred of Muslims. But, just as he is not a genuine libertarian, neither is he a genuine Zionist. On closer inspection, his pro-Israel stance is a version of fascist philo-Semitism.”

    distinctions with no difference … how Aquinas-esque … how many angels can dance on the head of that pin?

  • baw1064

    This column makes the makes the mistake of trying to project the views of someone who’s basically a nutter onto some map of coherent, self-consistent political philosophies. It doesn’t work. This guy’s just a nutter, and probably contradicts himself numerous times in his 1500 page manifesto.

    It’s pretty clear, though, that he can’t be either a libertarian or an anarchist. He seems to be most preoccupied by cultural traditionalism. Most libertarian philosophies would maintain that culture is within the realm of individual freedoms, and not something with which government need concern itself. If everyone in Norway were to decide to convert to Islam tomorrow, I don’t think an honest libertarian would have anything to say about it.

    If you don’t believe in having a government, then there’s obviously no enforcement mechanism to maintain cultural traditionalism. So, he can’t be an anarchist.

    I would call this guy a “cultural reactionary.” He wants to send the national culture back in time to some (idealized) past era.

    • jakester

      Good point, he was nuts. As well as tying to pigeon hole someone into some exact political straight jacket is so narrow minded and prone to inaccuracies.

      • SteveT

        Exactly. And, although, this may get me flamed, so was Bin Laden.

        It’s bad enough to kill someone you know in anger but killing people you don’t know for some bizarre political and social agenda puts you beyond the realm of ideology and philosophy.

        People being what they are, I’m sure there are right wing leaning parents in Norway whose children attended that camp. Teenage rebellion anyone? Those parents are mourning their children right now.

        • jakester

          These lone wolf cases are usually just psychos with some cheap political rationalizations. If he belonged to a group that planned and carried out attacks, then that would be far more serious

        • Nanotek

          I agree but groups that advocate violence dance with Hell

  • chephren

    The question isn’t whether or not Breitvick (sp.) is an anarchist, though he may be.

    It’s more germane to ask if the Tea Party, and the Republican party it has now come to dominate, is anarchist.

  • cranyonrye

    The assertion that the Norway Killer is an Anarchist is as intellectually dishonest as any I have ever heard. Anarchists are revolutionaries – ours is a single minded nihilistic class war against all tyranny – our targets are tyrants, dictators and fascists.

    The targeting of innocent children does nothing for our cause, the assassination of tyrants and dictators however is great propaganda of the deed. The Norway killers views are open, he is a racist with qasi fascist views – deal with it. The preservation of the white race is not the Anarchist cause.

  • NolaAnarcha

    #1) anarchists fight fascists like Brevik in the streets, we are more confrontational with neo-nazis than any other political/philosophical grouping of individuals!

    #2) this is a much better, and WAY MORE INTELLIGENT, response to Brevik’s insanity:

    The Biggest Threat to Western Values:
    Multiculturalism does not pose a significant danger to Western values – but neoliberalism does.


    The paranoid style in politics often imagines unlikely alliances that coalesce into an overwhelming threat that must be countered by all necessary means.

    In Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington conjured an amalgamated East – an alliance between “Confucian” and “Islamic” powers – that would challenge the West for world dominance. Many jihadis fear the Crusader alliance between Jews and Christians. They forget that until recently, historically speaking, populations professing the latter were the chief persecutors of the former.

    Now Anders Breivik has invoked the improbable axis of Marxism, multiculturalism and Islamism, together colonising Europe. As he sees multiculturalism as essentially a Jewish plot, Breivik has managed to wrap up the new and old fascist bogies in one conspiracy: communists, Jews and Muslims.

    Like his terrorist counterparts who kill in the name of various Islamic sects, Breivik is willing to slaughter people for an invented purity. Modern Norway is a latecomer to the world of nations, becoming sovereign only in 1905. Vikings, Arctic explorers and international humanitarians all went into imagining the place.

    Given how readily jihadi texts are dismissed as ravings, it is notable how much attention has already been paid to Breivik’s wacky ideological brew. This is a worrying portent of the line of analysis that says that the “root causes” of Breivik’s madness – immigration and cultural difference – must be addressed. Otherwise, European societies will lose their social cohesion, to choose one current euphemism for the Volk.

    To the extent such a view takes hold, the far right may be forgiven for concluding that terrorism works. As for the rest of us, now facing terrorist re-imaginings from both sides of obscure battles in a mythic past, we may long for the leftist and anti-colonial insurgents of bygone days. They at least could offer plausible accounts of what they were up to.

    To be sure, tactically speaking, Breivik thought through his operation. Unlike many jihadis, however, he lacked the courage to face men armed like him, and to offer his own life for his beliefs as well as the lives of others. Nonetheless he wanted at his court appearance to strut about in some kind of military uniform.

    Smartly tailored uniforms, an abhorrence of cultural difference, and a desire for racial purity are all of a piece with fascist mysticism. As with jihadi ideology, it is precisely the non-rational elements of fascism that give it emotive, and hence political, power. For what Breivik and others see as under threat in the West is the vital source of meaning, of ultimate values, which they associate with the communion of a purified people.

    Since the West faces no obvious threat of such existential scale and significance, one must be fabricated. It is here that the unlikely alliance of left wing parties and Islam plays its role, purportedly importing on a mass scale Muslims to colonise Europe. In Norway, Muslims account for less than three per cent of the population; in the UK, less than five per cent. Even so, the fantastical fear of the “loss” of Europe to Islam animates many on the right. It is part of mainstream electoral politics in Europe, and has long been an element of right wing discourse in the US.

    In this vision of danger, multiculturalism plays a key role. Many will have noted Breivik’s odd invocation of “cultural Marxists”, folks I have only spotted in small numbers in university departments and cafes frequented by graduate students. Breivik’s reference is in part to the Frankfurt School, a group of German Jewish scholars who fled Hitler for the Western cosmopolis of New York.

    The idea is that “Jews” have encouraged cultural mixing in the West, fatally compromising its purity and thus its values, while Muslims and Jews retain their cultural strength and identity. Europe must therefore declare “independence” and fight the Muslim-Jewish-Marxist hordes, apparently starting by killing their children.

    We can only assume that Breivik has confused the computer fantasy games he played – using a busty blonde avatar named “conservatism” – with political analysis. What is truly frightening, however, is that the core of this vision of multiculturalism as a threat to the West is shared by leading political parties in the France, the UK, Germany and Italy, among others. This is why there is every chance that Breivik’s murderous and cowardly rampage will achieve some of its aims. Immigration, it will be argued, has unbalanced “our” people. It is already being curtailed in all the leading Western powers.

    Shut up, obey, and collaborate

    The irony is that the West brought us empire on a global scale and drew its cultural, economic, and political strength from interconnections with all parts of the world. The cosmopolis of New York, London and Paris – a “brown” not a “white” West – are more appropriate beacons of a West flush with power and confidence in its values than the imaginary purification achieved through concentration camps and closed borders.

    But just what might be corroding values in the West?

    This was one of the questions that animated the Frankfurt School and those who influenced it. They focused on the interaction between capitalism and culture. They noted the ways in which capitalism progressively turned everything into something that could be bought or sold, measuring value only by the bottom line. Slowly but surely such measures came to apply to the cultural values at the core of society. Even time, as Benjamin Franklin told us, is money, a doctrine which horrified Max Weber in his searing indictment of the capitalist mentality as an “iron cage” without “spirit”.

    Note for example the ways in which the great professional vocations of the West – lawyers, journalists, academics, doctors – have been co-opted and corrupted by bottom line thinking. Money and “efficiency” are the values by which we stand, not law, truth or health. Students are imagined as “customers”, citizens as “stakeholders”. Professional associations worry about the risk to their bottom line rather than furthering the values they exist to represent. Graduates of elite Western universities, imbued with the learning of our great thinkers, are sent off to corporations like News International. There they learn to shut up, obey, and collaborate in the dark work of exploitation for profit, for which they will be well rewarded, at least financially speaking.

    Thanks in part to the grip of corporate power on the media and on political parties, few today in the West can imagine any other politics than those of big money. In the US, and increasingly even in Europe, the income differential between the poor and the wealthy already resembles that of banana republics. The downtrodden are asked to bear the burden of a financial crisis created by bankers. America’s wealthy fly their children to summer camp in tax-free private jets amid a real rate of unemployment of over fifteen per cent.

    Neoliberalism has only accelerated these processes at the heart of capitalist society. Here is a far more convincing threat to Western values and “social cohesion” than the lunatic fears of fascists. Notably, this is a threat that emanates from within, not without. It is precisely social democratic parties like Norway’s Labour Party – Breivik’s target – which have sought to contain the corrosive effects of capitalism and ensure the survival of the West’s most humane values.

  • Ethics Gradient

    Anarchists are not known for a habit of using:

    1) unprovoked
    2) lethal
    3) violence against random civilians.

    More likely, anarchists will use:

    1) very well provoked, officer!
    2) non-lethal
    3) violence against armed voluntary representatives of state
    4) …or more likely, their material resources

    …and you know, there is a difference to the feel of it! :P

    Furthermore, anarchists do not subscribe to religious, national or racial biases. Additionally, anarchists do not consider groups, especially involuntary, disagreeing or violently united groups (e.g. the populace of a given state or nation) capable of making valid decisions for themselves, instead preferring to see individuals choosing for themselves, which may or may not include truly voluntary cooperation and assembly.