First published July 27, 2011 at Talk to Action
by Chip Berlet
The core political views of Anders Behring Breivik, charged in the 2011 terror attacks in Oslo, Norway, track back to Islamophobic and anti-socialist conspiracy theories promulgated by right-wing groups in the United States. These theories are hardly marginal in the US. Islamophobia is commonplace in US political debates. Major political and media figures invoke the specific claim of a “Cultural Marxist” conspiracy to destroy Western Christian culture relied on by Breivik. In a softer form, 2012 Republican Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum spoke of a socialist conspiracy to destroy Judeo-Christian America.
Breivik compiled a 1,518-page document under the name “Andrew Berwick” which was posted before his killing spree. The document was titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence.” It became known as the Breivik Manifesto. Reading it provides a roadmap to the sources of his ideological orientation and clues about how he justifies his attacks. In addition, Breivik posted comments online under a number of different names. Several scholars and journalists read all or part of the Manifesto and made illuminating observations within days of the attacks, especially Jurgensmeyer and Sharlet. Many newspaper accounts of the sources used by Breivik point to specific Islamophobes; and rightfully so. I am more concerned, however, with the sources of Breivik’s basic ideology, and his use of specific frames, narratives, tropes, and memes.
The most extensively-developed and widely-distributed set of conspiracy claims that were relied on by Breivik were produced beginning in the 1990s by a pair of Christian Right intellectuals from the US-based Free Congress Foundation (FCF). The most influential ideologue is William S. Lind, formerly director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at FCF. Lind cites to the earliest article I can find outlining the specific conspiracy thesis adopted by Breivik, which came from the neofascist LaRouchite network in a disjointed conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School of critical method. Breivik directly mentions both Lind’s work and the LaRouchite article.
An issue that requires an early explanation is this: if Breivik is a lunatic, why waste time tracking down his mentions of intellectual mentors? A similar discussion arose with Jared Lee Loughner who is charged with shooting U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at a Tucson, Arizona where Giffords was meeting with constituents at a shopping mall.  As one journalist asked then, does “overheated political rhetoric contribute to political violence?” Zev Sternhell, a scholar of Fascism who was injured in a 2008 terrorist pipe bomb attack, says there is a connection. Sternhell saidthe Loughner attack on Giffords and others was related to “radical conservative incitement against the Obama administration’s health care reform law, which Giffords backed.” Loughner shows clearer signs of psychosis than Breivik, who Rosenqvist suggests is suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder that is not a form of legal insanity.
Dr. Marvin Swartz explains that “One’s cultural context does [have an effect on] people’s thinking and particularly their delusions. It gives some content and shape to their delusions. While we don’t know whether there was a specific relationship between the political climate that [Loughner] was exposed to and his thinking, it’s a reasonable line of inquiry to explore.” Swartz, a professor of psychiatry at Duke University, says it is legitimate to study “the cultural influences on people’s delusions or persecutory thinking,” and consider “different aspects of culture” and the how they affect people’s behavior. 
The link between mass media vilification of a scapegoated group and incidents of aggression and violence against that group is well-established. Not everyone gripped by the media massage reacts by assaulting or killing the scapegoat, however, and a few people actively resist the campaign. Older models of psychological interpretation often dismissed the violent actors as dysfunctional or mentally ill and left it at that.
Contemporary approaches factor in psychological considerations, but also consider the role of demonization and scapegoating in creating perceptual frames. Within sociology, the study of how the construction of frames and narratives assists ideological goals and attracts and retains recruits is well developed. In several disciplines there are studies of apocalyptic narrative storylines that cast the perpetrator in the role of hero for saving society from a mortal threat.
“The terrorist attacks in Oslo,” writes Gardell, “were not an outburst of irrational madness, but a calculated act of political violence.” There was a “certain logic” to the “carnage that can and should be explained, if we want to avoid a repetition.” Gardell notes that Breivik himself was aware that his “shock attacks are theatre and theatre is always performed for an audience”
Psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist believes Breivik is not legally insane, and his “deviant statements” about Islam and other matters “are an expression of an extreme ideology,” and should not be seen as “a psychotic view of reality.” Rosenqvist told reporters that Breivik was immersed in a cult-like anti-Islamic movement based outside of Norway. As one of Norway’s leading forensic psychiatrists, Rosenqvist’s opinion carried enough weight to have the matter of Breivik’s sanity reopened to a new pre-trial evaluation by outside experts.
Rosenqvist examined Breivik for Norwegian authorities while he was in prison awaiting trial. Breivik admits to the bombing and shooting spree, but denies criminal guilt, according to press accounts. The Telegraph reported Breivik describes himself as “a commander of a resistance movement aiming to overthrow European governments and replace them with ‘patriotic’ regimes that would deport Muslim immigrants.”
Behind the Breivik Manifesto
Breivik’s Manifesto is a compilation and compendium of his own writings and comments, text from author authors, and a self-interview. In a broad analysis, Gardell finds “four influential thought currents” in the Breivik Manifesto: Islamophobic ideologies, cultural conservative/neo-Confederate traditions, elements of modern White Power thinking, and anti-feminist thought. All of these are “framed by a distinctly romantic male warrior ideal.” 
Breivik’s core thesis can be abbreviated into a simple premise: multiculturalism, political correctness, and the feminist movement are part of a conscious plan by “Cultural Marxists” to achieve the destruction of Judeo-Christian nations in Europe. Breivik charges that behind this conspiracy is a network of “Cultural Marxists” plotting to cause a “systematic breakdown” which will lead to the destruction of sovereign states, as well as European Christianity, traditions, cultures, and national identity. European leaders are witting or unwitting agents of this plan by allowing a flood of non-white Muslim immigrant to pollute the nations of Europe.
In one online post Breivik warns: ‘There must be more focus on multicultural doctrines (multiculturalism = kulturmarxisme) as it is this ideology that allows the political mechanisms that result in continued Islamization (Islamic demographic warfare). People must learn what multiculturalism … doctrines do [to] Europe’ (2011).
The Breivik Manifesto states that both “multiculturalism” and “Political Correctness” are forms of “Cultural Marxism.” Breivik opposes a fantastic chimerical construction of “Cultural Marxism,” which he claims was a subversive invention of the Frankfurt School. Breivik probably knows little of the actual “critical theories” of the real Frankfurt School of the 1920s and 1930s, which are still discussed within sectors of contemporary scholarship, especially sociology.
Very little in the Breivik Manifesto is original thinking, with most of the ideas and text collected by netting the detritus in the far right eddies of the Internet. Breivik himself calls it a compendium and he admits he rushed it into circulation—as it turns out because he was arming for his terror attacks. Within hours of the attacks I was working with an online network of journalists and scholars blogging about political violence and then reading the Manifesto. In the first 20 pages I recognized the theories of Lind because I had just read them for a journal article about conspiracy theories and demonization of President Barack Obama.
Cultural Conservatism and the “Christian Worldview”
Juergensmeyer writes that Breivik is accurately called a “Christian terrorist.” Ingersoll, Sharlet, Posner, Giroux and others place Breivik’s worldview in the orbit of Christian Right or Religious Right ideological beliefs, frames, and narratives.
Descriptions of Breivik as a Christian fundamentalist, however, are not technically accurate. He describes himself as a ‘moderate’ Christian; and Posner traces how Breivik’s “Cultural Analysis” is drawn from a relatively common “Christian Worldview” found in the US Christian Right Within the political/social movement called by observers the Christian Right are a range of theologies and religious beliefs, including not only fundamentalism but also the broader category of evangelicalism; as well as participants in mainstream Protestant denominations and various forms of Catholicism and a few Jews. Muslims do not appear to be welcome in the Christian Right, with the exception of those who have converted to Christianity.
Breivik further described himself in online posts as a cultural conservative and a Christian conservative who felt that Protestantism had lost its way and that Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church. These views are almost identical to those of the late Paul Weyrich and William S. Lind who developed their theory of Cultural Conservatism as the way to save Western Culture at the Free Congress Foundation (FCF)—the Christian Right political epicenter in the United States.
In 1987, at the direction of its founder and leader Weyrich, the Free Congress Foundation published Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda, and followed in 1991 with a companion book co-authored by Lind on Theory and Practice. According to Lind, who credits Weyrich developing the theory:
Cultural conservatism is the belief that there is a necessary, unbreakable, and causal relationship between traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values, definitions of right and wrong, ways of thinking and ways of living—the parameters of Western culture—and the secular success of Western societies: their prosperity, their liberties, and the opportunities they offer their citizens to lead fulfilling, rewarding lives. If the former are abandoned, the latter will be lost.
Gardell’s suggestion that “cultural conservative” ideas and “neo-Confederate traditions” are linked is important. As Breivik’s Manifesto illustrates, over time the White Nationalist aspects of Cultural Conservatism became more apparent, especially with Lind’s later work. After leaving the Free Congress Foundation, Lind began to promote both antisemitism and a more overt White Nationalism. In 1999 Lind suggested that slavery did not damage race relations in the South as much as the federal government intervention during Reconstruction that followed the Civil War. Furthermore, according to Lind, if the Confederacy had won, “at least part of North America would still stand for Western culture, Christianity and an appreciation of the differences between ladies and gentlemen.”
Apocalyptic Aggression and Conspiracy Theories
Apocalypticism is a term used here to describe a sense that time is counting down to an event that will have earth-shaking or even cosmic significance. Apocalyptic beliefs can induce passive waiting for the expected event, retreat to survivalist compounds for safety, or an aggressive form of resistance to an anticipated confrontation pitting good against evil. Apocalypticism and its related forms—millennialism and millenarianism—are frequently positive or passive, and the form of apocalyptic aggression is relatively rare.
Brasher observes that “once a political struggle has been raised to a level of cosmic significance, it is difficult to resolve.” There is a tendency to circulate stories about an insidious or evil “Other” plotting attacks. “This is not a disagreement,” says Brasher, “but a struggle with evil incarnate, so there is no structure for a peaceful reconciliation.” There is no middle ground in the “the battle with evil.” Apocalyptic aggression, demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracy theories are key aspects of right-wing populist movements in the United States and Europe, especially in the Christian Right and other right-wing populist groups in the United States.
Apocalyptic aggression is justified by constructing narratives about powerful conspirators posing a threat to the idealized pure community. Since this is a subversive threat, it justifies the construction of a countersubversive movement. Through projection, the heroic countersubversive troops imagine the attackers are planning aggression and seek to destroy the society and replace it with tyranny. This justifies using aggression against the malevolent “Other.” In its most malicious form, apocalyptic countersubversive warriors move to eliminate—or exterminate—the evil conspirators before it is too late.
Countersubversive movements built around grand conspiracy theories of subversion and apocalypticism are a core aspect of the Christian Right in the United States.  For decades this conspiracy claim was linked to godless communism. Even before the collapse of communism in Europe, Christian Right authors were claiming that communists had secular humanists and liberals as willing agents of the conspiracy to undermine the United States. Marsden, a historian of religion, suggests this made the shift from fearing a communist conspiracy to fearing a conspiracy of secular humanists much easier in the 1990s, and “revitalized fundamentalist conspiracy theory.”
Fundamentalists always had been alarmed at moral decline within America but often had been vague as to whom, other than the Devil, to blame. The “secular humanist” thesis gave this central concern a clearer focus that was more plausible and of wider appeal than the old mono-causal communist-conspiracy accounts. Communism and socialism could, of course, be fit right into the humanist picture; but so could all the moral and legal changes at home without implausible scenarios of Russian agents infiltrating American schools, government, reform movements, and mainline churches.
Tim LaHaye, a leading fundamentalist author, wrote series of books in the 1980s that elaborated on the liberal secular humanist conspiracy and how conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists had to become politically active to stop the plot. LaHaye and others tied the struggle against what they denounced as liberal “secular humanism” to an idiosyncratic reading of prophetic text in the Bible, especially in the book of Revelation.
There are hundreds of books by Christian conservatives warning of an approaching apocalypse and linking this to betrayal by trusted political and religious leaders—a scenario drawn from their reading of the Book of Revelation. Many of these books warn of subversion by liberals, secular humanists, and Muslims, thus proliferating right-wing conspiracy memes across the Internet. Islamophobic Christian Right conspiracy memes linking Islam to Satanic plots in the End Times infect foreign policy debates in the United States.
Islamophobia and Xenophobia
A large number of journalists probed the references by Breivik to Islamophobic networks in the United States and Europe. Incorporated into the Manifesto were the views and writings of numerous noted Islamophobes and those that promote them. Fjordman, with 111 mentions, not only was the most frequently cited, but whole sections of the Manifesto are reprints of his essays and online blog posts. The subtitle to the Manifesto is taken from a March 2007 essay with the same title. Others with multiple references are Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch), Walid Shoebat, Diana West, Geert Wilders, and Daniel Pipes. Their essays appear on websites around the world, creating a virtual reference library, floating think tank, and informal network for incubating ideas.
Breivik references material from Fjordman repeatedly, including Fjordman’s comments left on the weblog of The Brussels Journal: The Voice of Conservatism in Europe. Fjordman in the comment (incorporated into the Manifesto) quotes extensively from Paul Fregosi’s book Jihad in the West. This same material is crossposted extensively across the Internet, including on the Jihad Watch website, with this introductory phrase: “A new essay from the superbly insightful Fjordman.”
Jihad Watch is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and its director is Robert Spencer, a weekly columnist for the right-wing media outlets Human Events and FrontPage Magazine. With Pamela Geller he co-authored The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. A lengthy essay by Spencer is incorporated into the Breivik Manifesto. 
Breivik defends White racial nationalism against a wave of Muslim immigrants he sees as flooding Norway. Gardell concludes the Islamophobic ‘leitmotif’ of Brevick’s conceptualizations can be traced to specific sources:
Breivik draws extensively on material produced by American anti-Muslim writers Robert Spencer, Gregory M. Davis, Andrew Bostom, and Daniel Pipes, British conspiracy theorist Bat Ye’or (Gisèle Littman), Dutch far right politician Geert Wilders, Flemish ultra-nationalist Koenraad Elst and the productive Norwegian anti-Muslim author who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman, all of whom have contributed significantly to the return of restyled brown parties to Western European parliaments.
Islamophobic ideologues travel to Europe from the United States to discuss the spread of Muslim immigrants. Some of them are advocates of cultural conservatism. There is a significant periodic conference, The World Congress of Families, where some speakers have warned of a “Demographic Winter,” a term which is a coded racist warning that Muslims are outbreeding “White people” in Europe and the United States.
Cultural Conservatism and Cultural Marxism
The U.S. Christian Right project against secular humanism was spearheaded by Lind, Weyrich, LaHaye, and right-wing author and political candidate Patrick Buchanan who gave a famous 1992 address about a “culture war” to the Republican National Convention. Buchanan contended:
There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton is on the other side, and George Bush is on our side …. [W]e must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country. 
In his speech, Buchanan also celebrated White racial solidarity through oblique language. Major public campaigns against multiculturalism and “political correctness” emerged as part of what became known as the Christian Right Culture Wars. These frames and narratives were exported to Europe.
In the mid-1990s Lind and Weyrich began to pose “Cultural Conservatism” a bulwark against what was originally called “Secular Humanism” but which they began to refer to as “Cultural Marxism.” In February 1999 Weyrich staked out a more conspiratorial analysis:
The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives. Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call “Cultural Marxism,” did so in a deliberate fashion. I’m not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this.
According to Weyrich, regular electoral politics had “failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer.” According to Breivik, Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness, and Multiculturalism are basically the same thing. Comparing the Breivik thesis with that of Weyrich and Lind shows a highly significant correlation of ideological views. Breivik’s Manifesto uses a large number of variations of the following words or phrases:
- Multicultural 1164 times
- Marx or Marxism 1137 times
- Cultural Marxism or Cultural Marxist 647 times
- Political correctness” 148 times
If Weyrich was the intellectual progenitor of the concepts adopted by Breivik, it was the work of Lind that most influenced Breivik. The concept of “Cultural Marxism” is a major focus of a Lind collection of essays with 29 mentions of the term in a 51-page pamphlet. In his essay on “What is Cultural Marxism?” Lind claims:
Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.”
In a circa 1997-1998 essay, Lind writes that the “next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness” and what they “really are” which is forms of the Cultural Marxist onslaught against “Western culture and the Christian religion.” Lind’s essays are not just circulated around the Internet, but are posted as educational resources. For example a Lind essay on political correctness is posted in the curriculum of the American Conservative Union Foundation’ Conservative University; described as “Transfering Conservatism to the Next Generation”  A speech by Lind in early 2000, “The Origins of Political Correctness,” is posted on the website of the right-wing watchdog group Accuracy in Academia. In it, Lind argues that:
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious…
Lind is directly mentioned in the Breivik Manifesto in a discussion about military strategy and the emergence of what Lind calls Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). Lind writes that 4GW:
…is combat characterised by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. The military doctrine was first defined in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind, used to describe warfare’s return to a decentralised form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their monopoly on combat forces, returning in a sense to the uncontrolled combat of premodern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent ideological network.
Fourth generation warfare is a model for the form of action taken by Breivik, who also claimed to be part of a lager underground terror cell, although this latter claim is apparently a fantasy.
An extensive study of 4GW is by]]]
Breivik Interprets Cultural Marxism
In his Manifesto’s Glossary of Terms, Breivik includes a very large block of text to define in detail the concept of what he calls “Cultural Marxism” or simply “multiculturalism” Having reviewed the theories of Weyrich and Lind, we can now see how they are interpreted by Breivik in this lengthy extract:
Cultural Marxist/Multiculturalist Alliance: the alliance of European political, cultural and media elites (cultural Marxists/multiculturalists) who support the implementation of multiculturalism/cultural Marxism/cultural relativism.
Cultural Marxism/multiculturalism: term describing the current Western European/US political/moral systems based on “political correctness” – a mix of Marxism, extreme egalitarianism, suicidal humanism, anti-nationalism, anti-Europeanism and capitalist globalism. The ML ideology or political platform (Maoist-Leninism) ML which is also a European hate ideology, was later refined “toned down” and disguised and incorporated into politically correct movements such as; feminism, pro-drugs, pro-sexual revolusion, anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-Christendom, anti-capitalism, gay and disability rights movements, environmentalism etc. (see chapters explaining the Frankfurt School).
The current ideology is in fact a “communism light” or a deceptive form of communism which was created and propagated as soon as the Marxist-Leninists’ understood that the Europeans globally (Western Europe, US, Canada, Australia) would not follow the example of their Russian comrades (in early 20th century).
Feminism (including Sexual Revolution), egalitarianism, humanism are highly compatible and/or similar overlapping political concepts/ideologies. The purpose of cultural Marxism is to destroy or deconstruct Western Civilisation (where the Christian European patriarchy has dominated historically) and instead create the USASSR/EUSSR, a communist utopia based on Marxist-Leninist principles. In order to achieve this they must destroy traditional European social cohesion in society which is the basis for traditional European nation states.
They are therefore focused on the gradual deconstruction of European cultures, identities and the traditional structures (nuclear family, traditional morality and patriarchal structures) which has dominated humanity for the last 300 000 years. They understood early that political indoctrination would not be enough. They must destroy the very fabric of Europeanism so they (together with humanists and capitalist globalists) pushed for mass-third world immigration.
However, they made one critical mistake. They underestimated Islam which proved to be simply too resilient to be assimilated/pacified/feminised, even for them. Communism is often used when describing a complete ideology (economical principles included) while “cultural Marxism” does not describe economical principles.
In an extraordinary piece of investigative journalism, blogger Tom Walker discovered that much of Breivik’s text about “Political Correctness” appears to be “lifted almost entirely” from Lind’s publication “Political Correctness: a Short History of an Ideology,” published by the Free Congress Foundation in 2004. Pages 11-15 in the Manifesto are the entire Lind publication modified slightly to reflect references to Europe rather than the United States.
n an extraordinary piece of investigative journalism, Tom Walker found that Breivik had actually plagiarised Lind:
|One of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points. But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.||As Russell Kirk wrote, one of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points. But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.|
|Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts. In the end, the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and the grave.||Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts. In the end, the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and the grave.|
|But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies. If they are university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are employees of private corporations, they may face loss of their jobs. What was their crime? Contradicting the new EUSSR ideology of “Political Correctness.”||While some Americans have believed in ideologies, America itself never had an official, state ideology – up until now. But what happens today to Americans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies. If they are university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are employees of private corporations, they may face loss of their jobs. What was their crime? Contradicting America’s new state ideology of “Political Correctness.”|
The Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory
From pages 32-37 of his Manifesto, Breivik includes an entire chapter by Lind without credit, but including Lind’s opening line, “This is the sixth and final chapter in the Free Congress Foundation’s book on Political Correctness, or – to call it by its real name – cultural Marxism.”
As readers of the earlier chapters in this book already know, to understand Political Correctness and the threat it poses it is necessary to understand its history, particularly the history of the institution most responsible for creating it, the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School, or the Institute for Social Research as it was formally known, was established at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923. This fact alone is important, because it tells us that Political Correctness is not merely a leftover of the American student rebellion of the 1960s.
Another fact from that long-ago year, 1923, is equally significant: the intended name for the Frankfurt School was the Institute for Marxism. The Institute’s father and funder, Felix Weil, wrote in 1971 that he “wanted the Institute to become known, and perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism as a scientific discipline…”
Jay has written a comprehensive study of the nature of the conspiracy theory built around the Frankfurt School.
Conspiracism and Antisemitism
The US Christian Right project against Cultural Marxism is clearly aimed at the political Left and Democratic Party liberals. For some it carries a subtext of classic antisemitic tropes of a Jewish conspiracy. Lind’s version of “cultural conservatism” and the conspiracy of “Cultural Marxists” has clearly shifted into antisemitism, with an emphasis on highlighting the Jews who were Marxists at the Frankfurt School.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that on June 15 2002 Lind gave a speech to a Holocaust denial group charging that Cultural Marxism was a conspiracy concocted in Germany at the Frankfurt School. “‘These guys,’ he explained, ‘were all Jewish.’” SPLC revealed.
Berkowitz wrote that Lind’s “Cultural Marxism” writings had become “a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist.”  Conason described Lind’s version of the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory as being about “about the Marxist Jews who have infected American culture” (2003).  According to Berkowitz, variations on the theory were “being pushed by much of the American right.” Neiwert agreed, noting that Glenn Beck had “made a fetish out of Marxism on his show.” But the “chief promoter of the concept of ‘Cultural Marxism’ on Fox News, according to Neiwert, was Andrew Breitbart, in interviews with Seam Hannity on Fox News.
Some are finding it difficult to understand how Breivik, who supports Israel, could employ an antisemitic conspiracy theory. In part it is because the conspiracy theory is focused on a small handful of Jews said to be shaping history and political economy. Of course, that is the same logic of the infamous hoax document, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Conason notes that the same week that Lind “told the Holocaust deniers about those awful Frankfurt School Jews, Lind gave an interview about Islam and the war on terror to the conservative Jewish World Review.”
The theory of Cultural Conservatism as outlined by Lind, Weyrich, and Buchanan was always deeply racist, and clearly in the case of Buchanan, antisemitic. It is not clear when Lind drifted over the line into an antisemitic narrative structure, although the frame of the sinister secret cabal lends itself to antisemitic interpretations.
The Conspiracy Theory Spreads
The Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is quite widespread in Christian Right subcultures. Consider the popular website WorldNetDaily which occupies the right flank of the conservative Christian conspiracy mongers. On March 1, 1999, David M. Bresnahan wrote about the ‘great pleasure of those who prefer cultural Marxism.’ Since then WorldNetDaily (WND) has over 110 pages that contain the phrase “Cultural Marxism;” and some 40 pages that mention the Frankfurt School. Pat Buchanan wrote a February 2004 article for WND where he encouraged conservatives to ‘uphold and defend the Constitution against justices perverting it to impose their cultural Marxism on a once-Christian republic.’
Another article on WND is “Baptists: Plan exit from government schools: New resolution tells churches to develop strategy for pulling kids out” (Baptists, 2006). The article warns that public schools are ‘indoctrinating children with cultural Marxism and dogmatic Darwinism’ (“Baptists” 2006). That same year WorldNetDaily carried an article by Bruce Shortt, ‘Public Education against America, which described ‘Cultural Marxism and the war against Christianity in our schools,’ and claimed, ‘Today, Cultural Marxism is virtually the norm on most campuses’ (‘Baptists’ 2006). WorldNetDaily has featured Lind as an author a number of times.
Over at the American Thinker website, Rogér (2010) claims that “to the left, cloaked within the progressive movement which has been attacking America since the early 1900s, Western society and capitalism mark the main battlefront.” According to Rogér, within “progressivism hides cultural Marxism, which attacks minds not only through corrupted textbooks, but also through more insidious channels.” Rogér continues:
Along with the philosophy of John Dewy, cultural Marxism constitutes a currency traded within the education profession. Ayers and other left-dogmatists spread the currency like a virus throughout universities, infecting teachers with Deweyism and cultural Marxism without regard for how the ideologies sicken America. Teachers carry the virus into elementary, middle, and high schools, to inoculate the children of America and guarantee the spread of a cultural disease called progressivism. (2010)
Linda Kimball, also an author at American Thinker, warned in 2007 that ‘The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity.’ Kimball then cites David Horowitz, claiming, ‘Cultural determinism’ is ‘identity politics—the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism—which is the basis of academic multiculturalism … a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well’ (Horowitz,  1998).
The essay by Horowitz claims that the “mentality” of multiculturalism is “Stalinist, but it is the particular Stalinism of Antonio Gramsci that informs the multicultural fervor in the academy.” Horowitz lays the blame at the feet of the Frankfurt School:
If you need an academic rubric under which to carry out this nihilistic attack, try ‘critical’—as in critical legal studies, critical race theory, or critical theory as such. Marx and his friends in the Hegelian Left were, of course, the original ‘critical theorists,’ but the ones you want to especially model yourselves after are the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School—deracinated Marxists who fled to the America they hated when the Hitler radicals came to power. Much earlier than you, Adorno and co. had lost faith in the proletariat and the liberated future as well. But they also did not want to give up their totalist assault on the bourgeois culture that gave them freedom to spew their abuse, and that had saved their lives as well.
Horowitz adapted the above text from a speech he delivered at the Seventh National Conference of the archly-conservative National Association of Scholars in New Orleans, December 12-14, 1997. Horowitz is a notable Islamophobe in the United States and several years ago sponsored ‘Islamo-fascism Awareness Week’ (2007) on scores of US college campuses.
Gender and Warrior Dreams
A review of literature produced by the Free Congress Foundation and the LaRouchite Network reveals an antipathy towards feminism and gay rights so intense that it is fair to describe it as a patriarchal gender panic. Breivik’s Manifesto echoes many of the same tropes. Breivik warns of a “deconstruction of European cultures, identities and the traditional structures” which he identifies as the “nuclear family, traditional morality and patriarchal structures.” He rejects what he sees as the current “pacified/feminized” culture of Europe. He sees himself as a heroic warrior standing erect against the onslaught.
The role of gender panic in interpolating an identity of the heroic warrior is analyzed by Gibson in Warrior Dreams. Ingersoll found in Breivik’s Manifesto “evidence of his profoundly sexist view of the world, where women are naive and lacking in rationality, but are useful for sex and reproduction.” She called it “emasculation paranoia.” Ingersoll also highlighted Breivik’s claim that “feminism is to blame for what he asserts is the success of a supposed Muslim plan for world domination.” Breivik “wants to set the culture clock back ‘to the ‘50s—because we know it works.” This mythic nostalgia, according to Ingersoll, “is a central feature …of how Breivik’s analysis could well have been lifted from the talking points of the religious right.
An example of this is in an essay by Christian Right author Gerald L. Atkinson that appeared in Lind’s collection on Political Correctness. Atkinson excoriates feminism and blames Cultural Marxism in a way that matches Breivik’s analysis. According to Atkinson:
Perhaps no aspect of Political Correctness is more prominent in American life today than feminist ideology. Is feminism, like the rest of Political Correctness, based on the cultural Marxism imported from Germany in the 1930s? While feminism’s history in America certainly extends longer than sixty years, its flowering in recent decades has been interwoven with the unfolding social revolution carried forward by cultural Marxists.
Pat Buchanan any many other Christian Right leaders attempt to build a Maginot Line defending heteropatriarchy by firing salvos at abortion and gay rights. Buchanan calls San Francisco “Sodom by the Bay.” Jeffrey Kuhner of the Edmund Burke Institute claims that “the pill and the condom are the hammer and sickle of cultural Marxism.”
Breivik summed up the situation in his Manifesto:
Multiculturalism (cultural Marxism/political correctness), as you might know, is the root cause of the ongoing Islamisation of Europe which has resulted in the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe through demographic warfare (facilitated by our own leaders). This compendium presents the solutions and explains exactly what is required of each and every one of us in the coming decades. Everyone can and should contribute in one way or the other; it’s just a matter of will.
Breivik’s triumph of will included bombing a government building and gunning down unarmed youth at a camp for the future leaders of a liberal political party. Our understanding of how demonizing language and the targeting od scapegoats in a society has not kept up with the new information systems that span the globe. Corporate media must accept some responsibility for not calling out false claims and conspiracy theories when used in public discourse. We know what happens when we ignore these dynamics. Now we need to redouble our efforts to analyze and unravel their complexities, honor civil liberties, and protect the safety of those at risk—and ourselves.
Thanks to many colleagues for sending me tips, links, and comments online in the first few days after the attacks, including Bill Berkowitz, Max Blumenthal, Devin Burghart, Frederick Clarkson, Michelle Goldberg, Julie Ingersoll, Martin Jay, Matthew N. Lyons, David Neiwert, Leah Nelson, Sarah Posner, Adele Stan, Robert Steinback, Zeynep Tufekci, and Tom Walker.
 Anders Behring Breivik (writing as Andrew Berwick), “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” July 2011, self-published. Hereafter referred to as Breivik, Manifesto. A copy of the Breivik Manifesto in PDF format is archived at http://www.corrus.fileferrets.org/dox/europe/breivik/Manifesto.
 For example, “Anders Behring Breivik’s comments on Document.no,” collected by site administrator 23 July 2011, http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/. A copy of the Breivik Manifesto in English in PDF format is archived at http://www.corrus.fileferrets.org/dox/europe/breivik/doc-no/.
 Within hours of the attacks several scholars and journalists began posting information through the Twitter social networking system. This was facilitated from the beginning by Zeynep Tufekci, Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was in touch with colleagues in Norway who provided her summaries of breaking news stories to her in English which she posted. See Chip Berlet, “Analyzing Breivik’s Ideology with Social Network Research.” In e-Extreme, the online journal of ECPR, the Standing Group on Extremism and Democracy, 12, no. 3, October 2011, pp. 7-8, http://www.extremism-and-democracy.com/ead/newsletters/Past%20newsletters/2011-12-03-eExtreme-Newsletter.pdf (accessed 29 January 2012). A related page of resources is at http://www.corrus.fileferrets.org/articles/breivik/.
 I am not suggesting in any way, however, that Lind or any other author mentioned by Breivik was in contact with Breivik or endorses his actions.
 Michael Hirsh, “In Hate’s Wake,” National Journal, 13 January 2011 [discussing the shootings by Loughner], http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/in-hate-s-wake-the-debate-over-political-violence-begins-20110113 (accessed 29 January 2012).
 Hirsh, “In Hate’s Wake.”
 Swartz quoted in Hirsh, “In Hate’s Wake.”
 Gordon W. Allport, Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954), Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, new ed., new prefaces (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,  1973).
 William. A. Gamson, The Strategy of Social Protest, 2nd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing,  1990); Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Among the foundational documents about framing are Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959); David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant Mobilization,” International Social Movement Research 1 (1988): 464-81. On narratives see Francesca Polletta, “Contending Stories: Narrative in Social Movements,” Qualitative Sociology 21 no. 4 (1998): 419-446; Joseph Davis, ed. Stories of Change: Narrative and Social Movements (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002).
 Mattia Gardell, “Roots of Breivik’s Ideology: Where Does the Romantic Male Warrior Ideal Come From Today?” OpenDemocracy.net, 1 August 2011, http://www.opendemocracy.net/mattias-gardell/roots-of-breiviks-ideology-where-does-romantic-male-warrior-ideal-come-from-today (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Gardell, “Roots of Breivik’s Ideology.”
 Jay, “Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment.”
 Chip Berlet “The Roots of Anti-Obama Rhetoric,” in Race in the Age of Obama, eds., Donald Cunnigen and Marino A. Bruce, eds., Research in Race and Ethnic Relations 16, (2010), 301-319; _______. “Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium,” in The Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-year Retrospective on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, eds. Richard Landes and Steven Katz (New York: New York University Press, 2011); _______. “Reframing Populist Resentments in the Tea Party Movement,” in Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party, eds., Lawrence Rosenthal and Christine Trost (Berkeley: University of California Press, Forthcoming, August 2012).
 Mark Juergensmeyer, “Is Norway’s Suspected Murderer Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?” Religion Dispatches, 24 July 2011, http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4910 (accessed 27 January 2012)
 Bill Berkowitz: Nightmare in Norway and the Threat of Fundamentalist Christian, Blonde, Blue-eyed Terrorists in Our Midst, Buzzflash, http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12881 (accessed 27 January 2012); Chip Berlet, posts on Twitter, July 2011, copies in author’s possession; Max Blumenthal, posts on Twitter, July 2011, copies in author’s possession; Michelle Goldberg posts on Twitter, July 2011, copies in author’s possession; Julie Ingersoll, “Breivik’s Christianity About Culture Not Piety, Religion Dispatches, 25 July 2011, http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/julieingersoll/4913/ (accessed 27 January 2012).; _______, “What’s Actually in Breivik’s “Declaration of Independence” Religion Dispatches, 26 July 2011, http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/julieingersoll/4931/ (accessed 27 January 2012; _______, “Breivik’s Emasculation Paranoia Fueled Vision for Patriarchal ‘Reforms,’” Religion Dispatches, 29 July 2011, http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/julieingersoll/4944/ (accessed 27 January 2012); Sarah Posner, “How Breivik’s ‘Cultural Analysis’ is Drawn from the ‘Christian Worldview,’” Religion Dispatches, http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4934/ (accessed 27 January 2012; _______, posts on Twitter, July 2011, copies in author’s possession; Jeff Sharlet, posts on Twitter, July 2011, copies in author’s possession; Henry A. Giroux, “Breivik’s fundamentalist war on politics, and ours,” 3 August 2011, http://www.truth-out.org/breiviks-fundamentalist-war-politics-and-ours/1312390288 (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Sarah Posner 2011″How Breivik’s ‘Cultural Analysis’ is Drawn from the “Christian Worldview” Religion Dispatches, http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4934/. Note that no major Christian denomination in the United States uses the phase “Christian Worldview” in the manner used here to identify a trend in the US Christian Right; and most would consider it a form of unacceptable religious triumphalism.
 Thomas Cincotta, Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants, and the Threat to Rights and Security, (Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates, 2011), http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/training/project-home.html (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Free Congress Research and Education Foundation (FCF), Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda (Washington, DC: The Institute for Cultural Conservatism (FCF), 1987); William S. Lind and William H Marshner (eds.), Cultural Conservatism: Theory and Practice (Washington, D.C.: Free Congress Foundation, 1991).
 William “Bill” Lind, A Short History of Cultural Conservatism (Washington, DC: Center for Cultural Conservatism, Free Congress Foundation, 2003). Originally downloaded from the FCF website. No longer available. Copy on file at Political Research Associates.
 Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 1992); Stephen O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Joel Kovel, Red Hunting in the Promised Land: Anticommunism and the Making of America (New York, Basic Books, 1994); Charles B. Strozier, Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994); Robert C. Fuller, Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York, Vintage, 1996); Philip Lamy, Millennium Rage: Survivalists, White Supremacists, and the Doomsday Prophecy (New York: Plenum, 1996); Chip Berlet, “Dances with Devils: How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism,” The Public Eye, 12, Nos. 2 & 3, (Fall 1998); Brenda E. Brasher, “From Revelation to The X-Files: An Autopsy of Millennialism in American Popular Culture.” Semeia 82, 2000, pp. 281-95.
 Chip Berlet, “Interview: Brenda E. Brasher,” publiceye.org, http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_brasher.html (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort (New York: Guilford, 2000);
 O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse; Lamy, Millennium Rage.
 Berlet and Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America.
 George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1991.),
 Tim LaHaye, The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know about Homosexuality, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1978); _____, The Battle for the Mind, (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1980); _____, The Battle for the Family, (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1982); _____, “Anti-Christ philosophy already controls America and Europe,” Pre-Trib Perspectives, (September 1999), http://www.timlahaye.com/about_ministry/pdf/sept.tim.pdf, accessed July 4, 2006. ; _____, The prophetic significance of Sept. 11, 2001, Pre-Trib Perspectives, (October 2001); _____, Tim’s pre-trib perspective, Pre-Trib Perspectives, (February 2002); _____, 119 million American evangelicals in these last days? Pre-Trib Perspectives, (April 2003); _____, One global government or two? Pre-Trib Perspectives, 8(4), (July 2003).
 Boyer PS (2003) John Darby meets Saddam Hussein: foreign policy and bible prophecy, Chronicle of Higher Education, supplement, February 14: B10–B11, http://chronicle.com/article/John-Darby-Meets-Saddam/18413 (accessed 27 January 2012); Cincotta, Manufacturing the Muslim Menace.
 See also Conor Friedersdorf, “Anders Behring Breivik and the ‘Anti-Jihadist’ Blogosphere,” The Atlantic 26 July 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-and-the-anti-jihadist-blogosphere/242533/; (accessed 27 January 2012).
Chris Rodda, “Writers Cited in Breivik Manifesto Have Spoken at U.S. Military Colleges as Anti-Terrorism Experts,” TalktoAction.org 27 July 2011, http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/7/27/124440/274 (accessed 27 January 2012).
Max Blumenthal, posts on Twitter, July 2011, copies in author’s possession.
 Breikik, Manifesto, mentioning the work of Andrew Bostom, (p. 122); Paul Belien, (p. 625); Gregory M. Davis, (p. 122); Bryan Daly, (p. 122); Koenraad Elst (pp. 133, 135, 331); Fjordman ; Hugh Fitzgerald, (p. 54); Fjordman (pp. 51, 60, 244, 280, 307, 308, 322, 328, 329, 332, 339, 342, 343, 344, 352, 353, 355, 356, 359, 376, 380, 408, 414, 416, 515, 561, 562, 585, 586, 590, 591, 596, 601, 611, 613, 614, 618, 621, 635, 642, 645, 650, 673, 674, 676, 681, 695, 696, 698, 704, 706, 710, 716, 717, 723, 725, 726, 727, 731, 737, 753, 762, 763, 764, 769, 800, 962, 1236, 1358, 1373, 1374, 1385, 1405, 1407, 1416); Brigitte Gabriel, (p. 219); Pamela Geller, (p. 625); Gisèle Littman (Bat Ye’or), (pp, 42, 54, 84, 85, 87,103, 111, 112, 116, 121, 175, 188, 189, 257, 259, 262, 271, 280, 281, 282, 284, 287, 288, 296, 301, 308, 322, 324, 415, 548, 585, 644, 645, 676, 722, 727, 729, 762, 769, 783, 1236, 1372 1373); Daniel Pipes, (pp. 274, 352, 412, 438, 500, 515, 556, 518, 724, 1372); Walid Shoebat, (pp. 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 522, 556); Robert Spencer, (pp. 57, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 144, 248, 329, 344, 425, 438, 516, 517, 531, 545, 560, 603, 644, 645, 674, 679, 712, 718, 762, 1236); Mark Steyn, (pp. 59, 331, 411); Diana West, (p. 334, 359, 363, 364, 560, 625, 621, 625, 701); Geert Wilders, (377, 403, 404, 405, 591, 597, 598, 624, 644, 1267, 1407).
 Robert Spencer, material included in Breivik Manifesto, pp. 425-439, (text locator: “2.31 Muslim Persecution of Christians”).
 Gardell, “Roots of Breivik’s Ideology.”
 Ellen Messer-Davidow, “Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education,” Social Text, 36, 1993, pp. 40-80; Ellen Messer–Davidow, “Who (ac)counts and how,” MMLA (The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association) 27, no. 1, 1994, pp. 26–41; Valerie L. Scatamburlo, Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right’s Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness, Counterpoints series, no. 25, (New York: Peter Lang, 1998); Debra L. Schultz, To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the Political Correctness Debates in Higher Education, (New York: National Council for Research on Women, 1993).
 Jean Hardisty and Chip Berlet, “Exporting the Christian Right Agenda. Forthcoming.
 William S. Lind, “Unmasking Political Correctness” conservative.org, http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/themes/Conservative/bl-archive/Issues/issue47/051102cul.php (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Breivik, Manifesto, July 2003, pp. 11-15. Breivik notes at the outset that “I have written approximately half of the compendium myself. The rest is a compilation of works from several courageous individuals throughout the world.” He does not actually cite many of them by name.
 Martin Jay, “Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe,” Salmagundi, 169, Fall 2010-Winter 2011, http://cms.skidmore.edu/salmagundi/backissues/168-169/martin-jay-frankfurt-school-as-scapegoat.cfm (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Southern Poverty Law Center, “Mainstreaming Hate,” Intelligence Report, No. 107, (Fall 2002), http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/fall/mainstreaming-hate, (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Bill Berkowitz, “Reframing the Enemy: ‘Cultural Marxism,’ a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right, Intelligence Report, Southern Policy Law Center, Summer 2003, http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53&printable=1(accessed 27 January 2012).
 Joe Conason , “More Confederate nostalgia from the GOP: Salon.com, Joe Conason’s Journal, 6 January 2003, http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2003/01/06/bush (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Bill Berkowitz, “Reframing the Enemy: ‘Cultural Marxism,’ a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right, Intelligence Report, Southern Policy Law Center, Summer 2003, http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53&printable=1 (accessed 27 January 2012).
 David Neiwert, “Norway terrorist Breivik was an ardent subscriber to theories of ‘Cultural Marxism.’” Crooks and Liars, July 23, http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/norway-terrorist-breivik-was-ardent-. Based in part on the program “Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism,” 2009, Fox News, Andrew Breitbart appearance on the March 25 edition of the Sean Hannity program, The Obama Lexicon segment. See Media Matters, “Breitbart: “Cultural Marxism is political correctness, it’s multiculturalism, and it’s a war on Judeo-Christianty,” Mediamatters.org, 18 December 2009, Andrew Breitbart appearance on Sean Hannity program, preserved as online video at http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200912180052.
 Conason, “More Confederate Nostalgia.”
 David Horowitz, Speech, National Association of Scholars in New Orleans, December 12-14, 1997.
 James William Gibson, Warrior Dreams: Paramilitary Culture in Post-Viet Nam America (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994).
 Ingersol, “Breivik’s Emasculation Paranoia.”
. Gerald L. Atkinson, “What is ‘Sensitivity Training?” in “Political Correctness:”A Short History of an Ideology, ed. William Lind.
 Buchanan PJ (2004). “Time for the counterrevolution,” WorldNetDaily, Feb 25, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37292 (accessed 27 January 2012).
 Brian Tashman, “Jeffrey Kuhner Calls for ‘Civil Disobedience’ to Combat Obama’s ‘Repressive State,’” Right Wing Watch, People for the American Way, 27 January 2012.
Updated: Breivik’s Core Thesis is White Christian Nationalism v. Multiculturalism
+Norway’s Nightmare & The Christian Fundamentalist – Bill Berkowitz
+When is Terrorism ‘Christian’? – Frederick Clarkson
+Breivik 2011 Manifesto Echoes Weyrich 1999 Manifesto – Chip Berlet
+Author Cited by Anders Behring Breivik Regrets Original Essay
+Breivik cited William S. Lind, Free Congress Foundation, & the LaRouchites
+Anders Behring Breivik: Soldier in the Christian Right Culture Wars