Brevik: "Don't let multiculturalists define what racism is or isn't.

[pampango]

Keeping an African against his will in your basement as a slave is racism. Loving your extended family/your ethnic group and fighting for ethnic and/or indigenous rights does not make you a racist; quite the opposite in fact. It makes you a civil rights activist." (Interesting to see a far-right definition of a "civil rights activist".) :thumbsdown:

Breivik's analyses, conclusions, and actions were heinous. His disidentification with the liberal state and its focus on gender equality, integration and racial diversity, however, give us reason for increased critical investigation. Racism, sexism, and anxiety about the threatened privileges of racialised heteropatriarchy (the supremacy of White male heterosexual superiority) represent longstanding ideals about European nationalist identity and illustrated concerns about political, social, and cultural transformations. The Norwegian Labour Party's stance on integration and (hopefully) antiracism could betray the White racial contract.

The underlying presumption of Breivik's thoughts is that White European interests, investments, and identity are what "politics" should protect and serve in a zero-sum game pitted against peoples of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. As it reflects a resurgent racialised European notion of nationalist politics, his perspective - about what racism is or isn't - remains unchallenged.

One month after the massacre in Norway, attention now turns to that country's political parties' preparation for municipal elections this fall. For all parties, immigration remains a central issue. In a typical "authoritarian populist" inversion of logic, the extreme right wing portrays itself not as the advocates of hate but as the victims of repression, as the race whose rights are under siege.

And the extreme right wing gets away with it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201182984256236502.html