Is Breivik racist?

I first wanted to ask this in the Small question thread but then I thought there was a lot of things to discuss. Sorry, I don't really know how to explain the different possibilities so I made a list and I hope that your opinions and knowledge will help me better understand.

• His salute at the trial could mean he supports the "fighting" attitude of fascist against people whom they considered their enemies (a different culture and the left) and not the racist aspect of nazism.
  
• He often criticized the left for considering every right-wing person as being a racist/nazi. "Due to their propaganda campaigns the obvious result is that people become apathetic and/or are drawn to actual Nazi and racist groups."
  
• He wrote: " Those Americans who are in fact nationalists are almost always ethnocentric and are often associated with rhetoric related to “14 words movements”. This represents the first major divide as Europeans do not identify themselves as “white” but European. “White nationalism” does not exist in Europe. The reason is because Americans have been indoctrinated to suppress their European heritage (they don’t generally identify themselves using the term European-American) and many have therefore instead adopted the term “white”. The 14 words principle: “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” reflect the typical US “white nationalist” mentality and should never be used by a European individual. The term is indicative of a so called “race struggle” and therefore NOT necessarily a struggle for indigenous rights." "Some of the reason why many nationalists reject the “indigenous” argument is because it is generally used by a group who has been defeated. [...] Some nationalists thus associate these arguments with rhetoric of victimhood and defeat. The maschochistic nature of some nationalists (so called white nationalists in particular) turns them off from using this form of rhetoric and they instead contribute to defeat themselves by using rhetoric associated with supremacy. While I do not condone the “victimhood hype” in any way or form the fact remains that playing the victim card is the most potent strategy of our times. Refusing to use a logical and pragmatical approach in this regard (due to some primitive need to feed individual egos) is counterproductive and highly destructive."
  So it seems that he sees whiteness as a culture before seeing it as a biological race. So maybe for him white culture>other cultures but not necessarily white person>non-white person.
  
• But he also wrote: ""The black African is, by and large, physically stronger than other races and in sports, blacks generally make the best boxers and the best sprinters and long distance runners, I will get nods of agreement. "
  But if I say: "Whites are generally more intelligent and creative than blacks and have, throughout human history, solved the problems presented to the human race by Mother nature far more effectively than blacks have", I will be vilified as a racist.
  Yet both statements are firmly grounded in fact."
  
• I have the impression that he often used the word "race" to talk about culture, communities and nations. In French, the word "race" is always racist, it only means biological race. I don't know what the word means in Breivik's language.
  

A very interesting passage of his manifesto:

Breivik, p.668 wrote:

2.79 Educating the European patriots who lacks ideological confidence

It is extremely important that the cultural conservatives/patriots/nationalists in Europe who are ideologically confident take responsibility and educate/encourage the nonconfident nationalists.
So what is a non-confident nationalist and how do I approach him?
Every ideologically confident nationalist should take note of the following.
DO NOT make this war about race or ethnicity. You have to keep in mind that most people in Western Europe have been systematically indoctrinated for the last 4-5 decades. So opening liners such as the following is guaranteed to push people away:
“hail brother, fight by our side in the ongoing race war, we are going to destroy the ZOG and kill all the Jews, sieg heil brother!
I consider myself to be quite ideologically confident but had anyone said this to me, I would probably run for the hills and ignore any future encounter with that individual. Somehow, internal filters against these words are all hardcoded into the base thought patterns of a majority of Europeans through decades of multiculturalist indoctrination. Statements like that manages to trigger absolutely every red flag and alarm in the average European telling him to get the hell out of there. It is essential to understand this and that many people would rather commit suicide or live under slavery/harsh dhimmitude than to become a Nazi or fight for the Nazi cause. Because today’s Nazism isn’t the sum of the individual doctrines of National Socialism! It has rather become a massively bloated phenomenon - a reincarnation of pure evil itself. Demonising Nazism has through 6 decades of indoctrination (the most unparalleled indoctrination campaign witnessed in the history of man) which has developed into an unconscious established truth. As such, and due to the actual negative and evil aspects of this ideology, it is pointless to try to resurrect it in any way or form. Regardless of this obvious fact, many old school nationalists are still using this crap to try to recruit people.
In order to connect with the ordinary man you must understand that he is a modern man who has travelled a several decade long journey through multiculturalist institutions. He is completely brainwashed so tread carefully and take the required precautions. You have to understand his pain and concerns in his everyday life. The fear of Islamisation is the most pressing concern for most Europeans and Islam is NOT a race. So avoid talking about race. It is a cultural war, not a race war! If you do believe it is a race war, then keep it to yourself as it is un-doubtfully counterproductive to flag those views.
A cultural conservative is a closet nationalist, who is just using different rhetoric to avoid the stigma. It is often a strategic choice. The concept of nationalism appeals to less than 15-20% while the concept of cultural conservatism has the potential to appeal to as much as 35% although there is basically little difference. After all, three decades of multiculturalist indoctrination has taught me to adapt to the currently hostile environment we are living in.
Approximately 70% of Western European males would sacrifice their lives to prevent Europe from being conquered by Islam while less than 10% would sacrifice their life for their race. As such, it isn’t exactly rocket science to foresee which ideology (with given rhetorical strategies) will win over the “modern patriot”.
Waking up enough of our fellow Europeans will take several decades. Do not expect him to accept and embrace the light immediately; especially when we are fully aware of that he has been thought to avoid the light.

So he could truly believe that biological racism is bad, but maybe he is really racist and hide it in order to convince people or maybe he can't help but be racist, even if he is aware that it is wrong and so he hides it.


For the moment I don't think he is racist, especially because white-supremacism is much more an American concept than a European's. But I am not 100% sure.

Perhaps racist isn't the right word to use, strictly speaking. Maybe "prejudiced" would be a better term.

Considering that he hated multiculturalism, was against non-white immigration, did Nazi salutes, praised Hitler, copied several extracts from the Unabomber's manifesto into his own, and proudly called himself a fascist, I would say yes.

Also I would like to add that White Supremacy may seem like a more American concept, but it originated in Europe.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Considering that he hated multiculturalism, was against non-white immigration, did Nazi salutes, praised Hitler, copied several extracts from the Unabomber's manifesto into his own, and proudly called himself a fascist, I would say yes.

Also I would like to add that White Supremacy may seem like a more American concept, but it originated in Europe.

I agree.

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Considering that he hated multiculturalism, was against non-white immigration, did Nazi salutes, praised Hitler, copied several extracts from the Unabomber's manifesto into his own, and proudly called himself a fascist, I would say yes.

Also I would like to add that White Supremacy may seem like a more American concept, but it originated in Europe.

I agree.

I am surprised you both seem to link being against multiculturalism and racism. I agree racist people are probably against multiculturalism, but not the other way round. It is multiculturalism, so different culture, not "multirace". Therefore, him being against non-white immigration could be because he thought most non-white people had the cultures he hated, and thought it was impossible to choose among migrants to allow a very very few minority of them to come in Europe. He also said several times that Nazism and what Hitler did was horrible, but I don't know if he was lying or censoring himself. I found this on Wikipedia so I don't know if it is reliable: "The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto, without giving credit, while replacing the words "leftists" with "cultural Marxists" and "black people" with "muslims"." Black people cannot change their skin color but muslims can change their religion, it is different.

Given that the word "race" is different in French and English, maybe the word "racism" is too. To me, "racism" is linked to biology, it means that people are how they were born and cannot change. It would mean that (to take the example of Breivik's "enemies") someone with Arabic origins would still be inferior even if he was born in Europe, had the occidental culture and knew nothing of the Arabic culture. I don't think Breivik believed that rubbish. He even copied a text about an Ex-Muslim (although I don't know what are the origins of this person).

I want to make it clear that by no way I want to make him less odious. Him being racist or not doesn't change anything to the fact that he murdered 77 people and that he keeps preventing his victims' families to mourn their loss by always drawing attention on him and by whining and pretending he is a victim.

Yes. He espouses the Eurabia conspiracy theory, which is racist