Menu lock

The World

Jul 26, 2011

The Breivik manifesto and the Monckton connection

In the chilling manifesto by Norway gunman Anders Behring Breivik, it points readers to a video clip of climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton, writes Graham Readfearn.

Conspiracy theorists can easily be dismissed or even laughed off as unthinking, sometimes paranoid ideologues with a tainted view on society.

Their language is often wrapped around power and freedom and speaks of global threats to undermine “our” way of life.

Some outspoken deniers of the risk the world faces from human-caused climate change will often evoke such rhetoric, claiming efforts to legislate to cut emissions of greenhouse gases are socialist or communist plots to redistribute wealth.

But most who believe this rhetoric would never think of turning to force. Anders Behring Breivik did.

The 32-year-old Norwegian Christian fundamentalist is facing trial for the massacre of 76 people in a shooting and bombing attack in Oslo.

Revealed in his online manifesto is a deep paranoia of “Marxists” and of Islam. But Breivik also accepted the conspiratorial thinking of some climate sceptics.

In the manifesto, Breivik cites “environmentalist organisations” as being “smoke screens” for “cultural Marxists”. He also includes in this bracket, groups that advocate for animal rights, human rights, feminism and anti-racism

In a section of his manifesto entitled “Green is the new Red — Stop Enviro-Communism!”, Breivik writes:

“The neo-communist agenda uses politicised science to propagate the global warming scam in order to implement their true agenda; global Marxism.

“You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world.

“They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist — solutions to a problem that never actually existed.”

One section of Breivik’s manifesto points readers to a video clip of Lord Christopher Monckton, the climate change sceptic who is nearing the end of an Australian tour supported by mining magnate Gina Rinehart, The Climate Sceptics political party and part-funded by the Association for Mining and Exploration Companies.

The video is an excerpt of Lord Monckton’s October 2009 speech to Bethel University in St Thomas, Minnesota. The comparison to Breivik’s manifesto is chilling.

In the video, Lord Monckton evokes former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the fall of the Berlin Wall and suggests moves to kerb greenhouse gas emissions is cover for the creation of a global government.

Referring to the 2009 UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which was just weeks away at the time of his speech, Lord Monckton said: “A world government is going to be created. The transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries in satisfaction of what’s called coyly a climate debt because we have been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we have been screwing up the climate — we haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.

“Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.”

Lord Monckton told the audience: “In the next few weeks, unless you stop it (the signing of the Copenhagen accord), your president will sign your freedom, democracy and prosperity away forever. It’s here in your great nation,” he said.

“It is here that perhaps at this 11th hour at the 59th minute at the 59th second you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty.”

“In the weeks before his Australian tour at a conference in Los Angeles, Lord Monckton displayed a swastika on a large screen next to a quote from former Australian government climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut, accusing him of holding a “fascist” point of view.

Crikey called Lord Monckton this morning, but before we had time to ask a question, he said: “Having seen what that website (Crikey) is about I am disinclined to speak to you,” and then immediately hung-up.

But Lord Monckton’s rhetoric — as stirring and inspiring to some as it so obviously is — does not stand alone.

In November, UK Daily Telegraph columnist James Delingpole will tour Australia touting his book  Watermelons — The Environment Movements True Colours. Delingpole, an ardent climate sceptic, says his book shows how environmentalists are “green on the outside, red on the inside”.

Other high-profile Australian commentators have echoed such sentiments while promoting Lord Monckton.

Recently retired Liberal senator Nick Minchin revealed that he too believes environmentalism is a cover-story for communism. In 2009, speaking about global warming he told the ABC’s 4Corners.

“For 10 years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting peoples’ innate fears about global warming and climate change to achieve their political ends.

“For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the Western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.”

On Thursday at an event in Melbourne, the Institute for Public Affairs continues its promotion of a series of speaking engagements by Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus.

Among the titles of his talks at cities across Australia, there has been “Climate change the dangerous faith”, “Climate change a new ideology” and “The mass delusion of climate change”.

If the horrific events in Norway have told us anything, it is that such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

72 comments

Leave a comment

72 thoughts on “The Breivik manifesto and the Monckton connection

  1. Len Lambeth

    They don’t care.
    They will spout their bile without regard for the consequences, just as Phoney Tony will say anything to get into power.
    Glenn Beck compares the youth camp on Utoya island to the HitlerJugend.
    Monckton calls Ross Garnaut a fascist.
    Alan Jones and “Juliar” – it’s all grist to their mill.
    There is no reasoning with maniacs like these.
    The people who manipulate them and feed their paranoia are a threat to democratic society.
    Perhaps we need a small “l” liberal counterattack – a dirty tricks unit. Carefully planted stories about the misbehaviours of the public figures, referencing London cottages etc.
    Unfortunately we’re too nice for that.

  2. Socratease

    “If the horrific events in Norway have told us anything, it is that such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.”

    It may have “told” some, but it has simply reminded the rest of us. You need look no further than the leadership of Germany in the 1930s for perhaps the prime chilling example of minds being shaped by conspiratorial rhetoric.

  3. Andrew

    The scale of the mass murder in Norway would pale into insignificance compared to the scale of future climate change-triggered disasters, including extreme weather events, yet the ideology underlying them is the same …

  4. Frank Campbell

    “conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways”

    It cuts both ways. Paranoid fantasies proliferate on the Left as well as the Right.

    Breivik’s “Mein Kampf” praises Howard’s bigoted refugee policy and Windschuttle (ex-Trot turncoat).
    It was the Howard govt. who invited Mark Steyn here, remember? Adolf Beivik loves Mark Steyn. Who’s Mark Steyn? Only the most toxic columnist-bigot to penetrate the respectable Right in decades. The Spectator finally got rid of him. I think even Pox News dumped him.

    Climate extremists like Savonarola Hamilton (“suspend democracy”) , Simon Chapman (both publicly funded academic propagandists) et al, feed Rightwing paranoia. The far Right capitalises on this – and worms its way into the leadership of many groups resisting climate hysteria- such as victims of wind turbines. I talked to the new Senator Madigan before anyone in Canberra. He makes Steve Fielding look like a gay rights advocate, but anti-wind groups are glad of his vote. As I said repeatedly on Crikey, this guy is downright creepy. Anyone who hates coffee is creepy.

    Likewise an outfit called the Australian Environment Foundation exploits rural distress. The AEF pushes guns, hunting and an extractive anti-environmental attitude in the bush. They are also exploiting rural distress at the attack on basic human rights suffered by wind victims.

    And what do we find on Crikey (and even on 4 Corners last night)? Relentless promulgation of climate extremism and ridicule of any opposition whatever. I’ve put up with this for over two years. The trashing of people’s basic rights in the bush is a Crikey trademark.

    The Right benefits, both the lunatics and the parliamentary Right.

    The loser is the environment.

  5. puddleduck

    Geez, by their reckoning, I’m Moscow Red (a Murobond paint colour and quite lovely!).

    Thing is, if Breivik had the world he wanted, eventually it wouldn’t tolerate him either.

    I have a friend who thinks the Holocaust is made up – late 30s, European parentage, should know better. It’s astonishing. But I don’t think that person would get a gun and shoot people. Thank God.

    Maybe the problem is our irresponsible use of language – I heard a right-winger complaining about that just yesterday. As Readfearn notes “such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.”

    I’m rambling. I’ll go now. To advocate for non-human animal rights, human rights, womens issues, and anti-racisim.

  6. Quizzical

    If Andrew Bolt had written an article in like vein, and attempted to make such links in the reverse direction, it would have been thoroughly trashed by the true believers.

    But I think I now understand – the Hoddle Street massacre, the Port Arthur massacre, and so many others were all triggered by global warming sceptics. Possibly even the Wars of the Roses due to glacial changes causing thermal runaway of the brains of the warring families.

    All this in a country where it is obvious that Julia Dullard’s CT is a wealth distribution exactly as postulated by the Monk and others.

    Quote “such conspiratorial rhetoric can shape some minds in the most dangerous and chilling of ways.” That’s it, I’m removing the TV, banning the kids from getting fiction books at the library, and no more watching the footy with the crowd calls of “kill the umpire”.

  7. Mark Duffett

    Julia Gillard and Bob Brown support motherhood. Breivik supports motherhood. Clearly then, Gillard and Brown share some responsibility for the Norwegian massacre.

    Why not? It’s precisely the same logic as is being implied by this piece.

  8. Matthew Greensmith

    Can we avoid the use of an insane whacko’s actions to justify thought crime accusations on those we don’t like?

    The summary of this article seems to be that Breivik and Monckton have a demonstratable connection in their ideology. That ideology is one of the excuses Breivik used for his actions. Therefore Monckton should hold some level of culpability. Therefore we should supress similar ideologies for fear of them creating another Norway tragedy.

    I apologise if this was not the intent of the article, it was certainly how it read to me.

    My critique? firstly its a false equivelence. It is not intellectually justifiable to argue that the viewpoint created the action, and that if the “…the conspiratorial thinking of some climate sceptics.” was not a factor the whole mass murder thing may not have happened. Likely if you took away all Breivik’s stated reasons for his actions they would just be replaced with a different laundry list.

    Secondly the argument is specious reasoning, using correlation as causality. Brievik is a monster, Brievik and Monckton share a philosophy, therefore Monckton is a monster. All dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog. Monckton (et al.) may be a monster, he definitely seems to at least be prone to some douchebag behaviour. This makes the proffered argument easier to accept; it does not though make it correct.

    Thirdly, having looked briefly at Graham’s blog and his general opinion on Monckton there may well be a little compliance bias driving the reasoning in this article. Monckton uses inflamatory rhetoric linking opinions he doesn’t agree with to monstrous actions (e.g. linking swastika to Garnaut). This article descends to his level rather than rising above it. “Never argue with an idiot. He’ll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”

    Reductio ad Hitlerum

  9. LucyJr

    Spin kills. Free speech must be diluted with responsibility.

  10. SusieQ

    Apart from anything else, I would have thought that Marxism/Communism as a workable way of doing things disappeared with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Its like reading an article from the cold war….and just as creepy.

Leave a comment