The Friday 22
Part Two. Breivik Sees Red
By Israel Shamir
Breivik hated Reds even more than
Muslims. The Pakis should be deported, but the Commies –
shot as traitors, he wrote in his 2083. He fumed
against communism like Hitler in Mein Kampf, but
Hitler had better reasons. Hitler competed against the
Communists for the hearts of German workers, AND Hitler
competed against the softies within the
national-socialist movement in Germany, who (notably the
brothers Strasser) were prepared to deal with
A long time has passed since then.
Communism won in the titanic struggle of 1945, but
suffered a huge setback in 1991 with the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Consequently, anticommunism has lost its
meaning since at least 1991, but probably even earlier.
Today, it could possibly mobilise a few old-timers in
Washington DC, but maybe not even them.
It is with great astonishment we
witnesses of Communism's defeat read in 2083 that
Communism was victorious:
“The US but especially W. Europe lost
the Cold War due to the fact that we didn't persecute
the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and
every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the
economical aspects but the cultural as well –
internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme
egalitarianism, anti-elitism, anti-nationalism) we would
not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous
and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to
gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2,
especially our universities and the media (see the
beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this
happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist-Leninists)
were allowed to indoctrinate the '68 generation, those
who run things today.”
Breivik arrives at the unexpected
conclusion that both the EU and the US are, in our
present age, “socialist” or even “communist” states,
“EUSSR and USSR” organised in accordance with Marx’s
teachings. I did not know that Karl Marx envisaged a
society with hundreds of billionaires and millions of
paupers. One would have to be mad to describe the
contemporary US and EU as “communist dictatorships” –
these societies are extremely inegalitarian -- workers
are on the bottom, while the super-wealthy have an
ostentatious lifestyle unheard of even in Medici’s
The reason for this unexpected
conclusion is that Breivik intentionally confuses
Marxism-Leninism as the ruling ideology of the Soviet
Union and Maoist China, with the neo-Marxist western
ideology of Fromm and Adorno, Marcuse and Lukacs. With
all due respect, the Cold War was NOT a war with them,
but a war against the USSR and its allies, a war with
its geopolitical as well as ideological components.
Western neo-Marxists were rather the allies of
the Capitalist West in that war, and their contribution
to the fall of the Eastern citadel of Communism was
enormous, as they successfully undermined the Russian
elites’ belief in their own ideology.
Though Breivik quarrels with the
Western Marxists, he finds it convenient to connect them
with the Gulag and with alleged mass murders in the
USSR. This is dishonest: the Western neo-Marxists were
against Stalin, and they called their Eastern brethren
“Stalinists”, at least since the short-sighted
Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956.
Khrushchev, a crypto-Trotskyite,
frogmarched the Communists through an unnecessary and
unpopular de-Stalinisation instead of letting bygones be
bygones. Nowadays President Medvedev is talking again
about de-Stalinisation; probably this talk will prevent
his re-election. The people of Russia have differing
views about Stalin, but the vast majority were and are
against de-Stalinisation, for to them it symbolises the
breakdown of the national masculine heroic paradigm.
Breivik accuses the Communists of
supporting “extreme feminism”. This is odd. Joseph
Stalin was the ultimate symbol of masculinity: the great
Yugoslav director Dushan Makkaveev depicted him in his
Mysteries of the Organism in priapic form.
De-Stalinisation can be viewed as an attempt to unman
the Father-figure of the Communist world. Again,
Breivik’s ridiculous claim can be explained by his
desire to gather all the Reds into one big heap: from
grim NKVD commissars to California sociologists to the
Norwegian teenagers he shot. He learned this nasty trick
from his Neocon teachers: they paint every nationalist
by the same brush as Adolf Hitler.
We reject it out of hand: not every
traditionalist and nationalist is a Breivik or a Hitler;
the Communists take differing positions on tradition,
with Eastern Stalinists being quite conservative,
traditional and mildly nationalist, while Western
neo-Marxists rejected the bourgeois nationalism which
caused two world wars.
Breivik stresses the Communist
origins of the Frankfurt school's founders, of Theodor
Adorno and Georg Lukács – but the neocons, too, were
red-diaper babies or even active Trots before switching
sides. Gramsci indeed dreamed of cultural hegemony as
the means of arriving at socialism. He thought that a
new “Communist man” might be created before any
political revolution. However, Gramsci was mistaken.
This theory of Gramsci was used to preach a reformist,
non-revolutionary way, avoiding a violent takeover of
banks and factories. The idea was played up by the
Euro-Communists and, after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, disappeared with the Euro-Communist parties.
Lenin was right, and Gramsci was
wrong: you have to take away from the capitalists both
their chequebooks and their factories, their weapons and
their newspapers, their parliament and their government,
otherwise they will turn every agenda of yours to their
benefit. The Frankfurt school and other Western
neo-Marxists stood by the West in the Cold War.
The Western neo-Marxists behaved like
the proverbial man who searched for a lost coin under
the lamppost. Though he knew he had lost the coin
elsewhere, there was more light under the lamppost. They
did not know how to interact with workers, and so
preferred to work with minorities, students, feminists.
It was easier, but led nowhere, as we now see. The
workers of Spain and Greece rose up last month, but the
neo-Marxists were nowhere to be found. They did not lead
this real popular revolt, as they were only used to
their toy revolutions in the field of semantics.
The neo-Marxists gave up on
revolution, gave up on socialism, gave up on the
workers, and instead preferred to work “so no future
Holocaust would be possible”. Kevin McDonald, from
California State University, wrote that they choose to
follow their Jewish agenda rather than the Communist
one. Breivik had not read McDonald the Terrible, or at
least never referred to him, being such a good pupil of
Jewish pundits. KMD’s explanation was forbidden to him.
He just intoned that what these men did IS communism.
Actually, many texts in 2083 are old anti-Jewish screeds
with find/replace Jews by Marxists.
Regretfully Breivik was wrong: the
communists did not win. We did not move even one step
closer to communism by promoting gay marriages and
multiculturalism. Fighting against Christianity and
family does not help, either. All these steps were
appropriated and used by Capital and against workers.
Actually, the objectives of socialist revolution and “no
more Holocausts at any cost” are mutually exclusive. For
the first objective, we need brave and daring men, for
the second, all men must be unmanned, for real men are
The proof that Breivik speaks
nonsense (even in his own terms) can be found in his
2083, where he rates European states according to
their acceptance of what he calls “cultural Marxism”.
Not surprisingly, Russia and other countries of the
Communist block are the freest from this dogma, while
Germany, Sweden and Norway are the most subservient.
Indeed, destructive western neo-Marxist theories were
never popular in the East, where capitalism was
dismantled in the real sense and there was no need for a
make-believe pseudo-communist ideology to paper over a
As for the West, 1968 was not, as
Breivik says, V-day for Marxism, but the beginning of a
turn towards the Iron Heel. Our freedoms peaked just
after the long-gone year of 1968. 1968 was a turning
point in America. In 1968, the richest Americans
contributed 90% of their income to the state, while now
they pay less than 30% (never mind that they do not pay
even that much by cleverly exploiting tax shelters,
exempt funds and other tricks). It was in 1968 that the
American worker’s minimum pay peaked in real terms.
Looking back, 1968 was the moment in history when
mankind was nearest to the stars.
As children of the defeated ’68
revolution, we were free to love, smoke, think and act.
We could travel and fly without being stripped at the
airport, and our booze was not confiscated. We could
make love and smoke in cafés. Since then, it has been
downhill all the way: smoking has been banned, free
thought has been incarcerated by Political Correctness,
and political action has been reduced to joining a
In the US, as Noam Chomsky has told
me, the U-turn coincided with the
teachers’ strike in New York
which reminded the Jews that their narrow interests are
not necessarily best served by progressive and
revolutionary tactics. Accordingly, the revolutionary
ideologists of ’68 acquiesced in pacifying the masses,
and the chances for a new holocaust or even loss of
influence were indeed minimised.
The masculinity of the Left receded, too. Support of
dubious gender politics and retreat from the class
struggle changed the Left. While the Left had always
pushed for equality between the sexes, this equality
leaned rather towards the masculine
pole: whether it was a worker building the barricade,
sailors storming the Winter Palace, cigar-smoking
barbudos of Castro, they were all manly symbols of the
Left. During the epic confrontation of the first half of
20th century, the Red Guards were not more
feminine than the Stormtroopers, and Ernst Thaelmann was
not less masculine than Ernst Roehm.
The present misbalance of male/female
factors in the developed world was caused by
technological developments (man’s physical strength is
less needed), by ideological shift and by capitalists’
desire to maximise profit by employing women. As a
result, men are frustrated. Their old traditional role
of providers is over; their jobs went away to China,
fighting is done by drones. Breivik’s massacre bears the
mark of a frustrated and marginalized Norwegian man.
Breivik felt his manhood threatened
by “television, where nearly every major offering
has a female 'power figure' and the plots and characters
emphasize the inferiority of the male and superiority of
the female… by government-mandated employment
preferences and practices that benefit women and use
'sexual harassment' charges to keep men in line, [by]
colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and
'affirmative action' is applied in admissions and
Yes, the killer is a psychotic man whose vision is
hardly adequate, but his point should be considered.
Even his hatred towards Muslim immigrants could be
traced to the threat to his manhood presented by virile,
successfully competing for the charms of the Nordic
girls. This massacre and its possible follow-ups might
well have been averted if this European man did not feel
his manhood threatened in so many ways.
The massacre is a sign that the Yin/Yang balance of
Europe is severely biased; it should be restored and
this urgent task can’t be delayed – this is an important
lesson of the Friday 22 massacre.