You talk about a "split" from Nazism, as if all Nationalists must necessarily start from Nazism and then "split" from it.
I have never heard of Breivik talk of Norway specifically, instead, it has always been 'Western Europe'. You're misconstruing his points. Breivik's goals do not stop at the National level, like you think that they do, instead, they go forward in a pan-European agenda that goes beyond being Nationalist. Unless you want to try and say that Western Europe is a Nation.
EDIT: In which case, you had best start saying Pan-Nationalist.
If you read the material I provided for you, you would understand that Breivik was not just against Muslims, he's made scapegoats out of the Democratic Socialists in his country, (or Cultural Marxists) and this is affirmed by the massacre that he committed (Utoya). There is also the part in his manifesto wherein he identifies Economic Liberalists, anti-Colonialists, traditional Right-wingers, etc. as threats to his ideologies and as subversives for Islam/Cultural Marxists. There is also sections that decry Democracy for the same reason.
It is also worthy to note the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was suggested to be destroyed, by Breivik, and for the same reason;
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is an international judicial body established in 1950 to monitor respect of human rights by states.
This court has however to a larger degree developed into an unrecognizable beast whosemain task is to deconstruct European traditions, culture and identity because it is considered offensive towards all non-Europeans and especially Muslims. Since we still want to preserve our culture and heritage I see no other alternative than to reform (limiting the current mandate considerably, or replace the cultural Marxist judges with cultural conservative ones) or completely eliminate the court altogether
And then, we also get into his rants about Feminism, Muliculturalism, Egalitarianism, etc. in Chapter 2.8,
"As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves."
in reference to,
"..Are not the notorious ‘gang rapes’ another example of collective violence to European women, just as Russian soldiers did when they seized German women in a devastated Berlin in 1945. It all holds together. A tribe that does not protect its women is behaving as if they have already lost the war. Many of us don’t know this. But our enemies do."
And then, we have the later chapters, where Breivik blames Feminism for 'softening' Europe's 'defenses' against Islam. I could go on and on about how Breivik completely trashes Left ideology and blames it for letting the Muslims in.
Coincidentally, Hitler did the exact same thing when he brought up the Left during his time. Blamed it for letting the Jews and the Bolshevists in, and then blamed the Jews and the Bolshevists for ruining the country.
Consider the possibility that Breivik was never a Nazi and therefore never had to "split" from it.
Define Nazism for me. What do you think Nazism is? How is it different from shutting off immigration, becoming colonialist (expansionist), becoming less economically liberal, less feminist, more monocultural and less Democratic?
Please, don't tell me we're headed for the 'White Nationalism =/= Nazism' argument.
Breivik is part of the Counter-Jihad movement, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Nazism. Breivik was against Muslim influence in Europe, and allied himself with Jews. Hitler was against Jewish influence in Europe, and allied himself with Muslims.
I was not citing that Breivik was part of the Counter-Jihad movement and basing my opinions that he is a Nazi off of the fact that he is a Counter-Jihadist, or even off the fact that he is anti-Muslim. Again, read the manifesto I provided for you. Take note of the part where he smashes Leftism and promotes a single-minded Rightist state wherein Liberalism of any form is blamed on being weak and letting the 'unwashed hordes' in to conquer the nation and rape that which was once great. Compare that with Nazism and his views on the Jews and the Bolsheviks and tell me again that I have no reason to believe he is a Nazi.
The onus is not on me to prove that Breivik wasn't a Nazi. You're the one who made the claim.
And now I have forwarded my views on why I think he is a Nazi. The onus is on you to prove that Breivik is just an Anti-Immigrant Nationalist.
