Conservative Christian Knight

I suppose since he didn’t explicitly call the victims of the Norweigian terrorist “Little Eichmans” he won’t be pilloried:

Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at Cal State Long Beach, writing on the conservative eZine Alternative Right, admires Anders Breivik for his analytic skills and clarity of thought:

In general, however, it must be said that he is a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs, gaining control of NGOs).

To be sure, Professor MacDonald has some quibbles with Breivik for failing to call out the “Jewish media control” in Norway (and in Europe and America) , but in general the attack on multiculturalism is spot-on:

In any case, he is certainly right in characterizing multiculturalism as an ideology of hate. Note particularly his anger at the action of the Labour Party in England in opening the gates of immigration in order “to humiliate the right-wing opponents of immigration.” As he notes in several places, multiculturalism is hatred of Europeans and their culture masked by humanism

Professor MacDonald is fan of Anders Breivik’s manifesto, but what about his actions? What about the massacre of of the scores of young Labor Party activists? Again, MacDonald is clear in support of the “conservative Christian knight”:

It remains to be seen what the long term effect of his actions will be. There is certainly great revulsion at the murder of young people. However, I suppose it is possible that in the long run European elites will understand that the glorious multicultural future will not be attained without a great deal of bloodletting and realize they will have to change their ways. Indeed, one of his insights is that in the long run “the multi-cultural neocolonial regimes will either have imploded or have become very Stalinist.” I agree.

Dave Neiwert has a full rundown on the “intellectual” framework for this including some very interesting ties to American right wing conservatism.

I happen to believe in academic freedom and free speech so I think this fellow should be allowed to say whatever he wants. But it’s quite interesting to see a right wing professor basically endorsing terrorist activity (his disclaimer about the “revulsion at the murder of young people” notwithstanding.) It’s his right, of course, but I have to wonder if he would have had the nerve to say it if the victims had been American and if the the same shunning and protest would follow as what happened in the Ward Churchill incident:

*On September 12, 2001 Ward Churchill published a controversial essay about the September 11, 2001 attacks, entitled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”. In that essay, Churchill argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks and questioned the innocence of some of the 9/11 victims, characterizing them as part of the infrastructure of an imperialist government, and as “little Eichmanns”. National attention was drawn to the essay in January 2005, when Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in New York as a panelist in a debate titled “Limits of Dissent”.

Hundreds of relatives of 9/11 victims protested against Churchill’s scheduled appearance at Hamilton. Joan Hinde Stewart, Hamilton College president, said that the college was committed to his right of free speech and would not be rescinding the invitation. As publicity about this controversy grew, the Colorado Legislature unanimously passed a resolution labeling Churchill’s remarks “evil and inflammatory.” Colorado Governor Bill Owens, a Republican, stated Churchill should be fired and asked the university to dismiss him. New York governor George Pataki, also a Republican, called Churchill a “bigoted terrorist supporter.” Local media in Colorado and in the Hamilton College area broke the story and conservative bloggers such as Little Green Footballs and Free Republic began posting hundreds of comments critical of Churchill. Two days later the national media took note.