Inevitabilul pare a fi pe cale a se produce. A fi conservator moral, a fi educat in canonul occidental sau a fi chiar liberal clasic a devenit o infractiune. Deocamdata doar o infractiune morala, pentru care esti sanctionat public in presa. In viitor va fi probabil o crima, tratata ca atare de autoritati. Si totul de la un act inuman al unui scelerat, victima iluziei pe care acest blog a denuntat-o (vezi O iluzie periculoasa pentru (neo)conservatori si libertarieni).

Presa internationala a interpretat actul autodeclaratului “viking norvegian” drept o dovada a existentei terorismului de dreapta, crestin si conservator. Accente au fost puse pe anti-multiculturalismul sau, pe antimarxismul si antifeminismul sau. In pofida pozelor postate de acesta de-a lungul timpului s-au facut extrem de putine speculatii cu privire la legaturile sale cu masoneria moderna (cu exceptia unor trimiteri la Ordinul Templierilor) si cu evidenta sa simpatie pentru ideile neoconservatoare, cu care are in comun nu numai anti-marxismul, ci si anti-musulmanismul. Iar primii care au exploatat cu cinism situatia au fost chiar neoconservatorii, care au interpretat evenimente drept o dovada a necesitatii continuarii razboiului impotriva terorismului, musulman sau crestin, mai nou.

Insa interpetarile la fel de fanteziste ca si cele 1.500 de pagini ale manifestului/jurnalului sceleratului viking nu se opresc aici. Ultima tentativa de compromitere are ca tinta miscarea libertariana. Pornind de la un autointerviu pe care Breivik si l-a luat singur in manifestul sau, tradus (nu stiu cat de bine, necunoscand o iota de norvegiana) si publicat de Time, Scoala Austriaca a fost facuta responsabila moral (doar de cativa rataciti comentatori de pe net, e adevarat) pentru incurajarea “teroristului”. In acel pseudo-interviu, acesta isi descrie propria ideologie:

“Cultural conservatism, or a nationalist/conservative orientation known as the Vienna school of thought. As for the political movement, I would describe it as a national resistance movement, an indigenous-rights movement or even a right-revolutionary movement”.

Steven Horwitz a identificat si alte elemente care i-ar fi putut conduce pe internauti la alaturarea lui Breivik de scoala austriaca: un citat din Mises si patru din Hayek pe parcurusul celor 1.500 de pagini de fantasme apocaliptice ale “templierului” post-modern:

“There's only one cite of Mises, which is in a discussion of the nature of democracy where he also cites Popper.  The four citations of Hayek all come from either Road to Serfdom, in the context of the problems of international planning, the size of the state, and personal responsibility, or "The Intellectuals and Socialism," in the context of the "second hand dealers in ideas" becoming progressively more leftist. (He also mentions Hayek as one of the "villains" of Naomi Klein's book.) All of the quoted material is political theory and none of it can in any way be connected to the guy's hatred of Islam, his opposition to multiculturalism, or his justifications of violence and call for a European revolution.”

Dincolo de aberatia demonstrata de Horwitz a legaturii dintre individualismul liberal anti-etatist al scolii austriaca si militarismul nationalist anti-musulman al lui Breivik, exista indicii ca aceste citate sunt pur si simplu un exercitiu de copy/paste al acestuia, preluate probabil de pe alte bloguri neoconservatoare. Blondul norvegian nu numai ca nu a citit, dar nici n-a rasfoit vreun volum al celor doi economisti. De altfel, o mare parte a documentului de 1.5000 de pagini nu este nimic altceva decat un plagiat al altui celebru atentator, cunoscut sub numele de Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski. Dusman al progresului tehnologic, profesor la Univesity of California, Berkley, Kaczinski a ales calea opusa amish-ilor, apeland la violenta (18 bombe soldate cu trei victime), pentru a atrage atentia lumii asupra efectului distructiv al progresului tehnologic. Ideologia cuprinsa in manifestul sau n-are nimic a face cu cea a amish-ilor, cu atat mai putin cu cea libertariana, ea fiind bazata mai mult pe studiile Scolii de la Frankfurt si pe psihanaliza freudiana:

“As a critique of technological society, the manifesto echoed contemporary critics of technology and industrialization, such as John Zerzan, Herbert Marcuse, Fredy Perlman, Jacques Ellul (whose book The Technological Society was referenced in an unnamed Kaczynski essay, written in 1971), Lewis Mumford, and Neil Postman. Its idea of the "disruption of the power process" similarly echoed social critics emphasizing the lack of meaningful work as a primary cause of social problems, including Mumford, Paul Goodman, and Eric Hoffer (whom Kaczynski explicitly references). The general theme was also addressed by Aldous Huxley in his dystopian novel Brave New World, which Kaczynski references. The ideas of "oversocialization" and "surrogate activities" recall Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents and his theories of rationalization and sublimation (the latter term being used three times in the manifesto, twice in quotes, to describe surrogate activities)”.

Insa si mai importanta este lipsa de documentare a celor ce fac trimitere la Scoala Austriaca de Economie. Daca ar fi analizat documentul lui Breivik ar fi vazut ca acesta mai face mai pomeneste “Scoala Vieneza”, iar aceasta nu are legatura nici cu miscarea initiata de Menger, Bohm-Bawerk si Mises, nici cu Cercul vienez al pozitivismului logic, ci este o trimitere directa la un blog neoconservator modern (Gates of Vienna): “I now use these funds to be able to work full time to further develop/promote the Vienna school of thought that Fjordman, Bat Yeor, Spencer + many others have already contributed so much till.”

Iar legatura cu neoconservatorii este mai mult decat evidenta. Pro-israelismul sau este cel care hraneste sentimentele anti-musulmane, principalul motor din spatele actiunilor sale. Schizoida este si pozitia sa anti-progres tehnologic, cu atat mai mult cu cat vine din partea unui militarist, expert in folosirea ultimelor tehnologii militare. Anti-multiculturalismul sau este mai mult un element de decor. Pentru ca in realitate metodolgic, ideologia sa si cea neoconservatoare, nationaliste, au mai multe in comun cu multiculturalismul. Cum observa si Roger Koppl:

“The article “Multiculturalism” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that multiculturalists often presume that different cultures are .  It notes that multiculturalism is mostly about group rights, not individual rights, and that in its support of group rights, . Multiculturalism of this sort is clearly quite distant from the “true individualism” of liberals such as Adam Smith and F. A. Hayek. Multiculturalism reifies and reduces living, breathing, thinking, individual human beings to mere avatars of the cultures from which they descent, and perfect cyphers to the avatars of distinct . (…) It hardly seems possible to doubt that multiculturalists wish to be open, tolerant, accepting. Multiculturalism may nevertheless bolster the view that different cultures are alien, even hostile. Multiculturists generally miss the role of trade in turning enemies into friends and, generally, promoting peaceful social cooperation. Breivik might better represent the consequences of multiculturalism than the consequences of rejecting multiculturalism.”

Evenimente tragice de pe insula Uto(p)ya (remarcabila coincidenta de nume cu simbolul insulei ca locatie a utopiei revolutionare, cuprinsa in orice manifest progresist al “omului nou”), mai au o morala, surprinsa de William N. Grig: “Whenever an innocent person is confronted by an armed stranger in what appears to be a government-issued costume, one danger is that he is an imposter. An even more dangerous possibility is that he isn’t.”

Concluzia i-o las lui Justin Raymondo: Tragedia norvegiana “it’s a reminder that ideas have consequences. It’s not surprising someone took neoconservative propaganda seriously enough to go the terrorist route: Breivik is merely carrying out the program advocated by the David Horowitz’s, the Robert Spencers, the Pam Gellers of this sad and sorry world. The one difference is that Breivik and his fellow Knights are taking direct action, without bothering to employ the agency of government.”